finding that any error in failing to find additional severe impairment was harmless because the ALJ “satisfied” the “threshold inquiry at step two” by finding “at least one severe impairment”
How later courts described this case
- finding that any error in failing to find additional severe impairment was harmless because the ALJ “satisfied” the “threshold inquiry at step two” by finding “at least one severe impairment”
- concluding that substantial evidence supported the RFC whether medical sources indicated functioning in pertinent areas was normal or only mildly restricted
- stating that if “the ALJ determined at step two that at least one severe impairment existed; the threshold inquiry at step two therefore was satisfied”
- stating that a finding of any severe impairment is enough to satisfy the step two inquiry
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 13-11578 Date Filed: 10/29/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11578
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-00084-CG-N
DEBORAH ANN PACKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(October 29, 2013)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Deborah Packer appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the
administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of her applications for Disability
Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
Case: 13-11578 Date Filed: 10/29/2013 Page: 2 of 5
405(g), 1383(c)(3). On appeal, Packer argues that: (1) the record evidence was
insufficient to support the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) finding; and
(2) the ALJ’s RFC assessment was flawed because the ALJ should have found that
Packer’s right-knee-degenerative joint disease and varicose veins were additional
severe impairments. After careful review, we affirm.
We review the ALJ’s decision to determine whether it is supported by
substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards. Crawford v. Comer, 363
F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004). We must affirm a decision that is supported by
substantial evidence even if the evidence preponderates against the ALJ’s findings.
Id. at 1158-59. “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Id. at 1158. Moreover, we may not reweigh the evidence or
substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ. Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206,
1210 (11th Cir. 2005). “A clearly articulated credibility finding with substantial
supporting evidence in the record will not be disturbed by a reviewing court.”
Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th Cir. 1995). We will reverse where the
ALJ fails to apply the correct law or to provide us with sufficient reasoning to
allow us to determine that the proper legal analysis has been conducted. Keeton v.
Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 1994).
2
Case: 13-11578 Date Filed: 10/29/2013 Page: 3 of 5
An individual claiming Social Security disability benefits must prove that
she is disabled. Jones v. Patel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999). The Social
Security regulations provide a five-step sequential evaluation process for
determining if a claimant has proven that she is disabled. Id. A claimant must
show that (1) she is not performing substantial gainful activity; (2) she has a severe
impairment; (3) the impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals an
impairment listed in the regulations; or (4) she cannot return to past work; and, (5)
if the Secretary identifies other work, she cannot perform other work based on her
age, education, and experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Phillips v. Barnhart, 357
F.3d 1232, 1237 (11th Cir. 2004).
We have explained that the finding of any severe impairment, whether or not
it qualifies as a disability, is enough to satisfy the requirement of step two of the
sequential evaluation process. Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585, 588 (11th Cir.
1987). An RFC determination is an assessment, based on all relevant evidence, of
a claimant’s remaining ability to do work despite her impairments. Lewis v.
Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). There is no rigid requirement that
the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of evidence, so long as the ALJ’s decision
is not a broad rejection, i.e., where the ALJ does not provide enough reasoning for
a reviewing court to conclude that the ALJ considered the claimant’s medical
condition as a whole. Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005).
3
Case: 13-11578 Date Filed: 10/29/2013 Page: 4 of 5
In this case, Packer has failed to establish that her RFC assessment was not
supported by substantial evidence. As for Packer’s credibility, the ALJ determined
that Packer’s testimony and allegations concerning her medical condition were
credible only to the extent that they were compatible with her RFC assessment, and
that Packer’s hearing testimony “remained inconsistent and evasive, and failed to
provide any significant clarification of prior inconsistencies in [Packer’s]
allegations.” As for the medical evidence, Packer provided little evidence that
supported her allegations that her alleged impairments had limited her physical
functioning or work-related activities -- the medical sources indicated that Packer’s
physical functioning in the pertinent areas was normal or only mildly restricted,
and none of the medical sources indicated that Packer had any significant
functional limitations, let alone any disability. Notably, during the 18-month
relevant time period, Packer did not seek any medical treatment for almost an
entire year between February 2009 and January 2010. Moreover, Packer’s X-rays
were normal, she regularly demonstrated full range of motion in her legs and lower
back, and Packer never received more than arguably conservative measures to treat
any of her conditions. Therefore, Packer failed to establish that the ALJ’s RFC
assessment is not supported by substantial evidence.
As for her claim about step two of the sequential evaluation process, we are
unpersuaded. As the record shows, the ALJ determined at step two that at least
4
Case: 13-11578 Date Filed: 10/29/2013 Page: 5 of 5
one severe impairment existed; the threshold inquiry at step two therefore was
satisfied. Indeed, since the ALJ proceeded beyond step two, any error in failing to
find that Packer suffers from the additional severe impairments of degenerative
joint disease of the right knee or varicose veins would be rendered harmless.
To the extent that Packer contends that the ALJ failed to take her alleged
degenerative joint disease of the right knee or varicose veins into consideration at
other stages of the sequential evaluation process, that argument fails. The ALJ’s
decision demonstrates that the ALJ thoroughly considered the entire record and
accounted for all of Packer’s functional limitations. The ALJ repeatedly noted that
she was considering the entire record and Packer’s conditions in combination. The
ALJ addressed Packer’s musculoskeletal condition in general and specifically
noted that Packer’s musculoskeletal condition showed no signs or symptoms of
deep vein thrombosis. Packer does not identify record evidence demonstrating that
her alleged right knee degenerative joint disease or varicose veins either (1) caused
any limitations above and beyond those assessed by the ALJ, or (2) caused or
worsened her functional limitations. Therefore, Packer failed to establish that the
ALJ inadequately considered, at any stage in the sequential evaluation process,
Packer’s alleged right knee degenerative joint disease or varicose veins.
AFFIRMED.
5