The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
CARL DAVID BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 3:22-cv-58-DNF
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Carl David Brown seeks judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying his claim for
a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner filed the
Transcript of the proceedings (hereinafter referred to as “Tr.” followed by the
appropriate page number), and the parties filed legal memoranda setting forth their
respective positions. For the reasons set out herein, the decision of the Commissioner
is AFFIRMED pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
I. Social Security Act Eligibility, Standard of Review, Procedural
History, and the ALJ’s Decision
A. Social Security Eligibility
The law defines disability as the inability to do any substantial gainful activity
by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can
be expected to result in death, or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a
continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423(d)(1)(A),
1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505(a), 416.905(a). The impairment must be
severe, making the claimant unable to do his previous work, or any other substantial
gainful activity which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A),
1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505–404.1511, 416.905–416.911.
B. Standard of Review
The Commissioner’s findings of fact are conclusive if supported by
substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “Substantial evidence is more than a
scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. Even if the evidence preponderated against the
Commissioner’s findings, we must affirm if the decision reached is supported by
substantial evidence.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th
Cir. 2004). In conducting this review, this Court may not reweigh the evidence or
substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ, but must consider the evidence as a whole,
taking into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the decision.
Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (citation
omitted); Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995); Martin v. Sullivan,
894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990). Unlike findings of fact, the Commissioner’s
conclusions of law are not presumed valid and are reviewed under a de novo
standard. Keeton v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir.
1994); Maldonado v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-14331, 2021 WL 2838362, at *2
(11th Cir. July 8, 2021); Martin, 894 F.2d at 1529. “The [Commissioner’s] failure
to apply the correct law or to provide the reviewing court with sufficient reasoning
for determining that the proper legal analysis has been conducted mandates
reversal.” Keeton, 21 F.3d at 1066.
The ALJ must follow five steps in evaluating a claim of disability. 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520, 416.920. At the first step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant
is currently engaged in substantial gainful employment. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), (b); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i), (b). At step two, the ALJ must
determine whether the impairment or combination of impairments from which the
claimant allegedly suffers is “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), (c); 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.920(a)(4)(ii), (c). At step three, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant’s
severe impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii), (d). If the ALJ finds the
claimant’s severe impairments do not meet or medically equal a listed impairment,
then the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has the residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) to perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv),
(e)–(f); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv), (e)–(f).
If the claimant cannot perform his past relevant work, the ALJ must determine
at step five whether the claimant’s RFC permits him to perform other work that
exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (g),
416.920(a)(4)(v), (g). At the fifth step, there are two ways in which the ALJ may
establish whether the claimant is capable of performing other work available in the
national economy. The first is by applying the Medical Vocational Guidelines, and
the second is by the use of a vocational expert. Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232,
1239-40 (11th Cir. 2004); Atha v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 616 F. App’x 931, 933
(11th Cir. 2015).
The claimant bears the burden of proof through step four. Atha, 616 F. App’x
at 933. If the claimant meets this burden, then the burden temporarily shifts to the
Commissioner to establish the fifth step. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), (g); 20
C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v), (g). If the Commissioner presents evidence of other work
that exists in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant is able
to perform, only then does the burden shift back to the claimant to prove he is unable
to perform these jobs. Atha, 616 F. App’x at 993.
C. Procedural History
Plaintiff filed an application for a period of disability and disability insurance
benefits on November 27, 2019, alleging disability beginning February 27, 2019.
(Tr. 72, 183-87). The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. (Tr.
72, 90). Plaintiff requested a hearing and on January 22, 2021, a hearing was held
before Administrative Law Judge William Greer (“ALJ”). (Tr. 33-51). On March 1,
2021, the ALJ entered a decision finding Plaintiff not under a disability from
February 27, 2019, through the date last insured. (Tr. 10-27).
Plaintiff requested review of the decision, but the Appeals Council denied
Plaintiff’s request on November 15, 2021. (Tr. 1-6). Plaintiff initiated the instant
action by Complaint (Doc. 1) filed on January 17, 2022, and the case is ripe for
review. The parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge
for all proceedings. (Doc. 11).
D. Summary of ALJ’s Decision
In this matter, the ALJ found Plaintiff meets the insured status requirements
of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2024. (Tr. 12). At step one of the
sequential evaluation, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since February 27, 2019, the alleged onset date. (Tr. 12). At step two,
the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: “hypertension,
anhidrosis, dysfunction of major joints, carpal tunnel syndrome status-post surgical
intervention, and degenerative disc disease status-post anterior cervical discectomy
and fusion.” (Tr. 12). At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the
severity of any of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix
1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, and 404.1526). (Tr. 15).
Before proceeding to step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following
RFC:
After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional
capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 [C.F.R.
§] 404.1567(a), except he is limited to frequent handling and
fingering. The claimant requires a climate-controlled work
environment.
(Tr. 15).
At step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant
work as a salesperson, and automobile salesperson. (Tr. 25). At step five, the ALJ
relied on the testimony of a vocational expert to find that considering Plaintiff’s age
(49 years old on the alleged disability onset date), education (limited), work
experience, work skills, and RFC, there are jobs that existed in significant numbers
in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 25-26). Specifically, the
ALJ found that Plaintiff could perform such occupations as:
(1) appointment clerk, DOT 237.547-010,1 sedentary, semi-skilled, SVP 3
(2) office clerk, DOT 205.362-101, sedentary, skilled, SVP 4
(3) collection clerk, DOT 241.357-010, sedentary, skilled, SVP 5
1 DOT refers to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.
(Tr. 26). The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had not been under a disability from
February 27, 2019, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 26).
II. Analysis
On appeal, Plaintiff raises one issue, whether the ALJ’s evaluation of
Plaintiff’s subjective complaints was unsupported by substantial evidence. (Doc. 14,
p. 9). Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in misrepresenting Plaintiff’s testimony about
his activities of daily living to discount his subjective statements. (Doc. 14, p. 10).
A claimant may establish that he is disabled through his own testimony of
pain or other subjective symptoms. Ross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 794 F. App’x 858,
867 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005)).
In such a case, a claimant must establish:
“(1) evidence of an underlying medical condition and either (2)
objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the
alleged pain arising from that condition or (3) that the
objectively determined medical condition is of such a severity
that it can be reasonably expected to give rise to the alleged
pain.”
Id. (quoting Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210).
When evaluating a claimant’s testimony, the ALJ should consider: (1) the
claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the
claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the
type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication to alleviate pain or
other symptoms; (5) treatment other than medication for relief of pain or other
symptoms; (6) any measures a claimant uses to relieve pain or other symptoms; and
(7) other factors concerning a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due
to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Ross v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 794 F. App’x 858, 867 (11th Cir. 2019).
The ALJ should consider these factors along with all of the evidence of record.
Ross, 794 F. App’x 867. If the ALJ discredits this testimony, then the ALJ “‘must
clearly articulate explicit and adequate reasons for’ doing so.” Id. (quoting Dyer, 395
F.3d at 1210). The ALJ may consider the consistency of the claimant’s statements
along with the rest of the record to reach this determination. Id. Such findings “‘are
the province of the ALJ,’ and we will ‘not disturb a clearly articulated credibility
finding supported by substantial evidence.’” Id. (quoting Mitchell v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 771 F.3d 780, 782 (11th Cir. 2014)). A decision will be affirmed as long as the
decision is not a “broad rejection which is not enough to enable [a reviewing court]
to conclude that the ALJ considered [the claimant’s] medical condition as a whole.”
Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1211 (quotation and brackets omitted).
In the decision, the ALJ summarized Plaintiff’s subjective complaints about
his activities of daily living. He found that Plaintiff reported being able to prepare
simple meals, help care for his son, do some light household chores, drive, go out
alone, shop in stores, count change, pay bills, and manage his personal finances. (Tr.
16). Plaintiff could also get along with family, friends, and neighbors, could follow
instructions, handle stress, handle changes in routine, and interact with others. (Tr.
16). The ALJ also noted that Plaintiff alleged physical problems in attending to some
of his personal hygiene needs, and he needed reminders for medications. (Tr. 16).
The ALJ also acknowledged that Plaintiff spent most of the day watching television.
(Tr. 16). The ALJ further qualified his earlier statements on daily activities to note
that Plaintiff reported that he could bathe and attend to his own personal care needs
but had trouble putting on socks and shoes, could only drive short distances, and had
trouble reaching and grasping because of arthritis, bursitis, and pain related to carpal
tunnel syndrome. (Tr. 16-17). After review of Plaintiff’s activities of daily living,
the ALJ determined:
[T]the medical evidence of record does not support the alleged
severity of the claimant’s impairments. Based on a thorough
evaluation of all the medical evidence and hearing testimony
offered by the claimant, the undersigned finds the medical
records indicate the claimant suffers from severe medical
disorders that fail to result in disabling limitations.
(Tr. 17). The ALJ then thoroughly summarized the medical evidence. (Tr. 17-24).
After the summary of medical evidence, the ALJ made these general findings
on Plaintiff’s subjective complaints:
After careful consideration of the evidence, the undersigned
finds that the claimant’s medically determinable impairments
could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms;
however, the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity,
persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not
entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other
evidence in the record for the reasons explained in this
decision.
(Tr. 24). The ALJ acknowledged that Plaintiff alleged significant restrictions in his
ability to perform activities of daily living, but found that these allegations conflicted
with the objective medical evidence. (Tr. 24). The ALJ then explained the
inconsistencies between the objective medical evidence and Plaintiff’s alleged
severe limitations, such as results from physical examinations and diagnostic tests
showing no more than moderate abnormalities, and physical examinations showing
intact sensation, full muscle strength, and normal gait without use of an assistive
device. (Tr. 24). The ALJ then found:
In addition to the objective medical evidence and treatment, the
claimant has several activities that are inconsistent with the
total inability to work. He is able to [ ] live at home
independently with his family. He has the ability to prepare
simple meals, help care for his son, and do some light
household chores. He can drive, go out alone, shop in stores,
manage his personal finances, and attend to his personal
hygiene needs. The reported activities of daily living after the
alleged onset date demonstrates greater functional abilities
than the currently alleged limitations.
In summation, the medical records do not support a worsening
of the claimant’s conditions or any long[-]standing restrictions
in his ability to function, other than those noted in the residual
functional capacity. Upon evaluation of all the evidence of
record and assessment of the claimant’s allegations, the
undersigned finds the residual functional capacity described
above is well supported.
(Tr. 24-25).
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s description of Plaintiff’s daily activities left out
key details from Plaintiff’s testimony and function report that showed his activities
were not inconsistent with his disability claim. (Doc. 14, p. 11). Plaintiff points to
driving for only five minutes to take his son to school, having his wife and son to
take care of all major household responsibilities, struggling to put on his socks and
bending to use the toilet, preparing only simple meals, such as sandwiches four to
five times per week, and shopping for only fifteen minutes before this activity caused
pain. (Doc. 14, p. 11).
Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ referred to Plaintiff’s alleged
limitations or restrictions in daily activities. (Tr. 16-17). For instance, the ALJ noted
that Plaintiff reported he spent most of the day watching television, had trouble
putting on socks and shoes, could drive only short distances, had trouble reaching
and grasping, and claimed he could sit for fifteen minutes at one time, stand for ten
to twenty minutes at one time, walk for ten minutes before needing to stop, and
lift/carry about five pounds. (Tr. 16-17). The ALJ explained that Plaintiff’s alleged
significant limitations on his ability to perform activities of daily living conflicted
with the objective medical evidence, and his daily activities conflicted with a total
inability to work. (Tr. 24). The ALJ also found the RFC accounted for certain
restrictions by limiting Plaintiff to sedentary work, with an additional limitation to
frequent handling and fingering. (Tr. 15).
Here, the ALJ clearly articulated explicit and adequate reasons for finding
Plaintiff’s subjective statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting
effects of his symptoms conflicted with the medical evidence and other evidence of
record. The ALJ’s reasoning included not only finding that Plaintiffs daily activities
conflicted with his subjective statements, but also finding objective medical
evidence conflicted with Plaintiff's subjective statements. (Tr. 24). Substantial
evidence supports that ALJ’s determination as to Plaintiff's subjective statements.
HI. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the decision of the
Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and the Commissioner applied
the correct legal standard. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The
Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment consistent with this opinion, terminate
all deadlines, and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on September 22, 2022.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties