Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_13-cv-01055/USCOURTS-alnd-5_13-cv-01055-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

DAVID CARL SHAVERS )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) 

) Case No. 5:13-CV-01055-SLB

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, )

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff David Carl Shavers brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),

seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

denying his applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental

security income (“SSI”). After review of the record, the parties’submissions, and the

relevant law, the court is of the opinion that the Commissioner’s decision is due to

be affirmed.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Shavers applied for DIB and SSI on May 10, 2011, alleging a disability onset

date of December 28, 2009. (R. 67, 152-64).1 The Social Security Administration

denied his applications on August 29, 2011. (R. 95). He requested a hearing before

an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), which was held on October 19, 2012. (R. 31,

115-16). The ALJ denied his applications on December 7, 2012. (R. 11). 

1

 Citations to a document number, (“Doc. __”), refer to the number assigned to each

document as it is filed in the court’s record. Citations to page numbers in the Commissioner’s

record are set forth as (“R.__”).

FILED

 2015 Aug-10 PM 02:05

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 16
On January 29, 2013, Shavers petitioned the Appeals Council to review the

ALJ’s decision and asked for additional time to obtain a letter from his physician. (R.

8-9). The Appeals Council considered the additional evidence submitted by Shavers. 

(R. 1-2, 5). On April 2, 2013, the Appeals Council denied his request for review,

thereby rendering the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security. (R. 1). Shavers timely appealed to this court. (Doc. 1).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This courtreviews de novo the Commissioner’s conclusions of law and reviews

her factual findingsto determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence. 

Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007). Substantial

evidence is “relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to

support a conclusion.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

A. THE FIVE-STEP EVALUATION

The Commissioner follows a five-step sequential evaluation to determine

whether a claimant is disabled and eligible for DIB or SSI. 20C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a),

416.920(a); see Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 470, 106 S.Ct. 2022, 2025,

90 L.Ed.2d 462 (1986) (“The regulations for both programs are essentially the

same . . .”). For the purpose of this evaluation, “disability” is the “inability to engage

in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical

or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or has lasted or can be

expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. . . .” 42 U.S.C.

§ 416(i)(1)(A); see id. § 423(d)(1)(A).

1. Substantial Gainful Activity

2

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 16
First, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant is engaged in

“substantial gainful activity” as defined by the regulations. 20 C.F.R.

§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i);see id. §§ 404.1572, 416.972. If the claimant

is so engaged, he is not disabled. Id. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). Here, the ALJ

determined that Shavers had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the

alleged onset date of December 28, 2009. (R. 16).

2. Severe Impairments

If the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner

determines whether he suffers from a severe impairment or combination of

impairments that significantly limit his physical or mental ability to do basic work

activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) & (c), 416.920(a)(4)(ii) & (c). If the

claimant does not have such an impairment or impairments, he is not disabled. Id.

§§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). Here, the ALJ found that Shavers had severe

impairments of a history of irritable bowel syndrome/Crohn’s disease status post

small bowel resection in 2003, osteoporosis, and mild degenerative disc

disease/osteoarthritis/spondylosis of the lumbar spine. (R. 16).

3. The Listings

If the claimant hassevere impairments, the Commissioner determines whether,

alone or in combination, they meet the duration requirement and whether they are

equivalent to any one of the listed impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii),

416.920(a)(4)(iii); see id. §§ 404.1523, 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.923, 416.925,

416.926. If the impairments are equivalent to one of the listed impairments, the

claimant is disabled. Id. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). Here, the ALJ found that

Shavers’ impairments, alone and in combination, were not equivalent to one of the

listed impairments. (R. 16).

3

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 3 of 16
4. Residual Functional Capacity and Past Relevant Work

If the impairments are not equivalent to one of the listed impairments, the

Commissioner assesses the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which

is the most the claimant can do despite the limitations. 20 C.F.R.

§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1545(a)(1), 416.920(a)(4)(iv), 416.945(a)(1). She

considers all of the claimant’s medical impairments in determining the RFC. Id.

§§ 404.1545(a)(2), 416.945(a)(2). Then, she determines whether, considering the

RFC, the claimant can perform his past relevant work. Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv) &

(f), 416.920(a)(4)(iv) & (f). If the claimant is capable of performing his past relevant

work, he is not disabled. Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). 

Here, the ALJ determined that Shavers could perform light work and could lift

or carry up to 20 pounds occasionally and up to 10 pounds frequently. (R. 17). He

could stand or walk for six hours and sit for eight hours in an eight-hour work day

with normal breaks. He could not push or pull with his left arm above shoulder level,

but had no other limitations on pushing and pulling. He could occasionally balance,

stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps and stairs. He could not climb ladders,

ropes, or scaffolds, and had to avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, extreme

heat, and humidity. He needed to avoid concentrated exposure to hazardous

conditions, such as moving machinery and unprotected heights. (Id.). 

The ALJ consulted a Vocational Expert (“VE”) to determine whether Shavers

could perform his past relevant work, considering his RFC, age, education, and work

experience. (R. 84-85). The VE testified that Shavers could performhis pastrelevant

work as a cashier and electronics technician at this RFC. (R. 83-85). Based on this

testimony, the ALJ found that Shavers could perform his past relevant work and was

not disabled. (R. 20).

4

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 4 of 16
5. Other Work in the National Economy

Because the ALJ determined that Shavers was not disabled atstep four, she did

not consider whether he could performother work that existed in substantial numbers

in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 404.1560(c)(1),

416.920(a)(4)(v), 416.960(c)(1); (R. 20). 

B. SHAVERS’S CLAIMS

1. Weight afforded to treating physician’s opinion

Shavers argues that the ALJ should have given controlling weight to the

opinion of his physician, Dr. Charles Hood. (Doc. 9 at 6-7). 

In assessing RFC, the Commissioner may consider the opinions of “acceptable

medicalsources,” such as physicians, and “other sources,” such as nurse practitioners. 

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a) & (d)(1), 416.913(a) & (d)(1). In weighing these opinions,

the Commissioner considers whether, and the extent to which, the source examined

and/or treated the claimant, the evidence supporting the opinion, whether the opinion

is consistent with the record, and the source’s specialty. Id. §§ 404.1527(c),

416.927(c). She gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is

“well-supported bymedicallyacceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques

and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2),

416.927(c)(2). She may decide not to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling

weight when it is not supported by the evidence or the evidence supports a contrary

finding, or when it is conclusory or inconsistent with the physician’s own medical

records. Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240-41 (11th Cir. 2004). The

Commissioner must clearly articulate her reasons for disregarding the opinion of a

treating physician. Id. 

5

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 5 of 16
The determination of the claimant’sRFC and whether he is disabled isreserved

to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). She gives no special

significance to opinionsfrommedicalsources on these issues. Id. §§ 404.1527(d)(3),

416.927(d)(3). She considers an RFC assessment done by a non-examining state

agency physician as relevant to what the claimant can do. Id. §§ 404.1513(c),

416.913(c). 

Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with

frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even

though the weight lifted may be very little, a job isin this category when

it requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it involvessitting

most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls.

Id. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b). 

Here, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s weighing of the evidence and

assessment of Shavers’s RFC. On June 12, 2001, a radiologist reviewed Shavers’s

bone density tests and determined that he had significant osteoporosis. (R. 361). The

doctor suggested that Shavers engage in weight-bearing exercises and quit smoking

cigarettes. (Id.). In July, 2003, he underwent surgery to remove part of his intestines

and his appendix, due to long-standing Crohn’s disease. (R. 405). 

On February 4, 2008, Shavers saw Dr. Hood, a primary care physician, for an

initial visit. (R. 420). Dr. Hood noted that Shavers had past problems with Crohn’s

disease, trouble sleeping, and depression. (Id.). He visited Dr. Hood again on April

21, 2008, complaining of sinus problems. (R. 432). He returned on June 16 and July

21, 2008, for refills of his medication. (R. 425, 427). On November 10, 2008, he

complained to Dr. Hood about congestion and sinus issues and sought refills of his

prescriptions. (R. 428). On February 9, 2009, he saw Dr. Hood to get prescription

6

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 6 of 16
refills. (R. 424). He returned for refills on March 25, 2009, and requested a “B12

level.” (R. 429). 

On May 8, 2009, Dr. Hood gave him a B-12 shot. (R. 423). He returned on

August 3, 2009, for a check up, which was normal. (R. 430). Dr. Hood refilled his

prescriptions. (Id.). On September 28, 2009, and March 22, 2010, he reported to Dr.

Hood that his medications worked well. (R. 421, 431). On both of these days, his

physical examinations were normal. (Id.).

On August 19, 2010, he visited Dr. Hood and complained of a “flare up” of his

Crohn’s disease. (R. 418). He had experienced pain over the previous 24 days that

improved with medication. He denied any fatigue, muscle weakness, and joint or

back pain. Dr. Hood concluded that he had regional enteritis of the large intestine. 

(Id.). 

On April 6, 2011, a bone mass density test revealed that he had a low T-score

for his AP and lateral spine, with a high risk of fracture. (R. 454). He also had a

moderately low T-score for his femur with a moderate fracture risk. (Id.). The

reviewing doctor at the Texas Gulf Coast Medical Group (“Medical Group”)

recommended certain therapies and a follow-up test in one year. (R. 454-55).

On April 8, 2011, Shavers saw Dr. Daniel Whitman at the Medical Group

regarding his Crohn’s disease. (R. 446-48). He denied any fatigue, but reported pain

in his abdomen, diarrhea, heartburn, and blood in his stool. (R. 446-47). He denied

any back or joint pain, joint swelling, sciatica, or leg cramps. He stated that he was

not doing any osteoporosistreatment. (Id.). Dr. Whitman made secondary diagnoses

of GERD, diarrhea, rectal bleeding, polyarthralgia, and osteoporosis. (R. 446). He

prescribed medication for Shavers’s Crohn’s disease, GERD, and polyarthralgia, and

ordered diagnostic testing. (Id.).

7

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 7 of 16
On April 20, 2011, Shavers returned to the Medical Group and was examined

by Dr. Michael Lyons. (R. 449). His physical examination was normal and he

reported no fatigue, but complained of the same symptoms from his prior visit. (R.

449-50). Dr. Lyons counseled himregarding hissmoking and needed weight loss and

prescribed medication for his osteoporosis. (R. 449).

On July 26, 2011, Dr. James Tran performed a consultative examination on

Shavers. (R. 462-65). Shavers said that he continued to smoke cigarettes. (R. 462). 

Dr. Tran noted that he was well-nourished, had a normal abdomen and extremities,

and was ambulatory without an assistive device. (R. 462-63). He could tiptoe,

ambulate on his heal, and squat. (R. 463). He had a range of motion in his back of

50 percent. His joints in his hands were tender, but there was no gross swelling or

edema. His knee, hip, and ankle examination was unremarkable, and he was

otherwise normal. (R. 462-63). 

An X-ray of his left hand showed no radiographic abnormality, and an X-ray

of his lumbar spine showed mild degenerative spondylosis. (R. 463). He could sit,

stand, ambulate, and use his upper extremities. He could adequately control the pain

in his hand. He experienced no significant lower-back pain, spasm, or loss of motion. 

He had no gross joint deformity, bone or tissue disruption, or significant tenderness,

other than that of the bilateral hand. He had no crepitus, redness, or joint effusion. 

He had no motor loss and had normalstrength in his upper and lower extremities. His

grip strength was normal. (Id.).

A state agency physician conducted an RFC assessment on August 26, 2011. 

(R. 466-73). He concluded that Shavers could occasionally lift or carry 20 pounds

and frequently lift or carry 10 pounds. (R. 467). He could stand or walk about six

hoursin an eight-hour work day and could sit for the same. His ability to push or pull

8

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 8 of 16
was unlimited. (Id.). He could climb ramps and stairs occasionally, and could not

climb a ladder, a rope, or scaffolds. (R. 468). He could occasionally balance, stoop,

kneel, crouch, or crawl. (Id.). He had no manipulative or environmental limitations. 

(R. 469-70). 

On September 22, 2011, another state agency physician assessed Shavers’s

RFC. (R. 474-81). The physician concluded that he could frequently balance, stoop,

and kneel; otherwise, the physician’s assessment of his physical abilities was the

same asthe August assessment. (See R. 475-77). However, the physician determined

that he should avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, extreme heat, humidity,

and unprotected hazards. (R. 478).

The following day, Shavers visited Dr. Hood, complaining that his Crohn’s

disease and arthritis had been worse recently. (R. 444). He continued to smoke

cigarettes, but was trying to quit. (Id.). On October 24, 2011, he visited Dr. Hood

and complained of pain in his back, which had worsened over the previous week. (R.

443). He stated that he continued to smoke cigarettes. (Id.). Dr. Hood ordered an

X-ray regarding the reported back pain, which Shavers said extended to his right leg.

(R. 441). The X-ray showed six nonribbearing lumbar type vertebrae, discogenic

degenerative disease at the lumbosacral junction, and lower lumbar facet arthropathy. 

(Id.).

On January 20, 2012, Shavers told Dr. Hood that he continued to experience

the same level of pain and continued to smoke. (R. 523). On March 19, 2012, he

visited Dr. Hood to discuss medication for his Crohn’s disease. (R. 517). His pain

remained at the same level and he continued to smoke. (Id.). He returned on May 17,

2012, complaining that the medication the doctor prescribed caused pain and swelling

in his stomach. (R. 518). He experienced pain from his arthritis as well. (Id.). On

9

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 9 of 16
July 16, 2012, he complained to Dr. Hood of chronic pain all over from his arthritis

and pain associated with his Crohn’s disease. (R. 519). He stated that medication

helped his pain. (Id.).

He visited Dr. Hood again on September 7, 2012, and stated that his pain

remained about the same, but the B-12 shots helped a good deal. (R. 520). On that

day, Dr. Hood wrote a statement that Shavers suffered from Crohn’s disease,

osteoporosis, fatigue, B-12 deficiency, depression, and hypertension. (R. 521). He

continued to take his medication, but had some long-term side effects from the

steroids. He was “medically disabled due to episodes of severe diarrhea and other

medical problems.” (Id.).

On January 31, 2013, after the ALJrendered her decision in the case, Dr. Hood

wrote a letter stating that Shavers had two to three flare ups of Crohn’s disease each

month, which caused him to be bed ridden for two to five days. (R. 528). These flare

ups consisted of abdominal pain and five to seven diarrhea bowel movements per day,

with bloody stool on a chronic basis. Dr. Hood did not believe that Shavers could

maintain employment on a regular basis. He was unable to do repetitive movements

because it caused extreme pain in his hands, lower back, neck, left shoulder, and left

back rib area. (Id.).

Dr. Hood stated that Shavers had chronic pain in his left back due to an auto

accident in 2001, that caused hisribsto be concave. (Id.). Pulling, pushing, bending,

crawling, or twisting increased his pain, and he had to lay down a couple of times a

day to alleviate the pain. He had considerable problems with walking, standing, and

sitting for any significant period of time and had issues using his hands, upper left

shoulder, and “rib area.” (Id.). 

10

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 10 of 16
With the letter, Dr. Hood provided an RFC assessment, concluding that

Shavers could occasionally lift and carry ten pounds and could frequently lift and

carry less than ten pounds. (R. 529). He could stand and walk about two hours in an

eight-hour work day, and could sit for the same. He could sit or stand for 20 minutes

before needing to change positions. He needed to walk around every 30 minutes for

15 minutes at a time. (Id.).

Dr. Hood stated that Shavers needed to lie down at unpredictable intervals

twice during the work day. (R. 530). He could occasionally twist, stoop, and climb

stairs, and could never crouch or climb ladders. His back pain and arthritis pain

affected his ability to reach, manipulate, push, and pull. (Id.). He needed to have his

legs elevated, due to his feet swelling. (R. 531). His impairments would cause him

to be absent from work more than three times a month. (Id.).

On appeal, Shavers asserts that the ALJ should have given controlling weight

to Dr. Hood’s opinion. (Doc. 9 at 6-7). His assertion is without merit. The ALJ did

not err in giving limited weight to Dr. Hood’s opinion because it was inconsistent

with Dr. Hood’s medical records, which do not contain a similar assessment of

Shavers’ssymptoms. (R. 19);see Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240-41. From 2006 to 2012,

Shavers primarily saw Dr. Hood for prescription refills or for unrelated illnesses. (R.

421, 423-25, 427-32, 517, 523). In his notesfromShavers’s check ups over the years,

Dr. Hood never reported the limitations discussed in his letter and RFC assessment. 

On the few occasionsthat Shavers complained of flare ups of his Crohn’s disease and

pain associated with his impairments, he told Dr. Hood that the medications were

helpful, and Dr. Hood did not document any objective evidence supporting these

symptoms. (R. 418, 443-44, 518, 520). 

11

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 11 of 16
Dr. Hood’s opinion is also inconsistent with the other medical records, which

support the ALJ’s assessment of Shavers’s RFC. The April, 2011records from the

Medical Group show that Shavers had normal physical examinations and denied any

fatigue, joint pain, leg pain, back pain, or joint swelling. (R. 446-47, 449-50). On

July 26, 2011, Dr. Tran examined him and determined that he was well-nourished;

had a normal abdomen and extremities; could tiptoe, ambulate on his heal, and squat;

had no significant issues with range of motion; had no gross swelling or edema in his

joints and hands; and could control the reported tendernessin his hands. (R. 462-63). 

Dr. Hood’s opinion is also inconsistent with the opinions of two state agency

physicians, whose RFC assessments were substantially the same as that of the ALJ. 

(See R. 467-73, 475-78). 

Further, as the ALJ noted, Shavers did not seek treatment from a specialist for

his Crohn’s disease or arthritis when he had insurance, and he had very little

treatment after the onset date. (R. 19). Also pertinent to the ALJ was that, despite

having been advised to stop smoking tobacco for health reasons, Shavers had not

complied, which suggested that his conditions were not of such severity, frequency,

or duration as to warrant compliance. (Id.; R. 361, 449, 462). 

For these reasons, the ALJ did not err in giving limited weight to Dr. Hood’s

opinion, and her assessment of Shavers’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence

on the record. 

2. ALJ’s Credibility Finding

Shavers mentions his argument made to the Appeals Council concerning the

ALJ’s credibility finding asto histestimony. (Doc. 9 at 7). Without fully developing

an argument concerning the finding, he states that his “impeccable work history and

work ethic” supported his credibility. (Id.).

12

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 12 of 16
To prove a disability based on a claimant’s testimony as to his symptoms, the

claimant must present evidence of an underlying medical condition; and either

objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the symptoms, or evidence

showing that the objectively determined medical condition can reasonably be

expected to give rise to the symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a); Wilson

v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002). The ALJ must provide explicit

and adequate reasons for discrediting the claimant’s testimony as to his symptoms. 

Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225. If the ALJ does not, the court must accept the testimony

as true. Id. 

When the ALJ determines that an underlying impairment reasonably could be

expected to produce the symptoms the claimant describes, he evaluates the intensity

and persistence of the symptoms to determine the extent to which they affect the

claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1). Throughout

this evaluation, the ALJ considers a range of medical and other evidence, such as

evidence of the claimant’s daily activities, side effects of medication used to treat the

symptoms, and measures the claimant takes to alleviate the symptoms. Id.

§§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Here, Shavers submitted a Function Report that he completed in May, 2011. 

(R. 203-10). He stated that he had trouble putting on his pants, socks, and shoes, and

required frequent visits to the bathroom. (R. 204). He prepared meals daily, did

laundry, and shopped for groceries. (R. 205-06). He could count change, handle a

savings account, and use a checkbook and money orders. (R. 206). He watched

television, read, and talked on the phone with his family. (R. 207). He had a good

ability to pay attention and follow instructions. (R. 208). 

13

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 13 of 16
At the administrative hearing, he testified that he had severe diarrhea, bleeding,

and pain and bloating in his abdomen once or twice a month, which lasted two to six

days. (R. 42). He had to take medication and stay in bed for relief. (R. 43). Even

when he was not having a severe issue with his Crohn’s disease, he still had diarrhea

and trouble controlling his bowels. (R. 43-44). He had to time his trips out of the

house and ensure that a bathroom would be available. (R. 43). 

He testified that his arthritis caused constant pain in all of his joints. (R.

44-45). Pain medication provided relief, and he experienced a level of pain of two

out of ten on a daily basis. (R. 45-46). Due to fatigue caused by his Crohn’s disease,

he could only walk a block before needing to sit. (R. 46). He could stand for 20 to

30 minutes, and could only sit for 30 minutes before experiencing pain from his

arthritis. (R. 46-47). He could drive short distances. (R. 47). He needed to lie down

two to three times a day for one and a half hours to relieve the pain from his arthritis. 

(R. 48). His medication caused him to have muscle spasms and cramps in his hands

and feet. (R. 48-49). 

He had notseen a gastroenterologistsince 2004, partly because he did not have

insurance. (R. 54-55). He also had not seen a rheumatologist for his arthritis in a

long time. (R. 58). He did not go see a specialist when he did have insurance

because he believed there was nothing that could be done. (R. 59). He did not wear

protective undergarments. (R. 72). He had quit smoking four months before the

hearing. (R. 78).

The ALJ determined that his medically determinable impairments reasonably

could be expected to cause some of the symptoms, but his testimony as to the

intensity, persistence, and limiting effects was not credible, asit wasinconsistent with

the medical evidence, his own testimony, and the Function Report. (R. 18). This

14

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 14 of 16
finding is supported by substantial evidence. Shavers provided no objective medical

evidence supporting his account of the severity and duration of his flare ups of

Crohn’s disease or his assertion that he experienced constant, all-over pain from his

arthritis. See Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225. As the ALJ noted, his statement that he did

laundry, prepared meals, went grocery shopping, and did not wear protective

undergarments, also undermine his account of the severity of his symptoms. (R. 72,

205-06). Moreover, his testimony as to his symptoms and limitations was very

similar to the opinion of Dr. Hood, which this court explained is contradicted by the

medical record. 

3. The Appeals Council’s Consideration of New Evidence

Finally, Shavers argues that the Appeals Council should have remanded to the

ALJto consider Dr. Hood’sJanuary 31, 2013 opinion. (Doc. 9 at 8-9). He submitted

Dr. Hood’s opinion to the Appeals Council, which entered the letter into the record. 

(R. 262-64, 528-31). The Appeals Council fulfilled its duty to consider the new

evidence and determined it did not provide a basis for changing the ALJ’s decision. 

(R. 1-2); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.970(b); 416.1476(b). This court has also considered

Dr. Hood’s opinion and concluded that the ALJ’s decision issupported by substantial

evidence. See Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1262-66. There is no basis for remanding to the

ALJ.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the reasons set forth above, the decision of the ALJ, as adopted by

the Commissioner, denying Shavers’ claimfor DIB and SSI is due to be affirmed. An

Order affirming the decision of the Commissioner will be entered contemporaneously

with this Memorandum Opinion. 

15

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 15 of 16
DONE this 10th day of August, 2015.

 

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

16

Case 5:13-cv-01055-SLB Document 12 Filed 08/10/15 Page 16 of 16