IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

MITCHELL RAY CANADA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-867-BJ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff Mitchell Ray Canada ("Canada") seeks judicial review of a final adverse decision 

of the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Because the parties have 

consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, the undersigned has full authority under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c) to consider this appeal, including issuing a final judgment. For reasons stated herein, the 

decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") is AFFIRMED. 

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

Canada filed this action pursuant to Section 205(g) of Title 42 of the United States Code for 

judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claims for 

a period of disability, disability insurance benefits ("DIB"), and supplemental security income 

("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (the "SSA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423, 

and 1382(a)(3). (Plaintiffs Brief ("Pl.'s Br.") at 1.) On January 24, 2020, Canada filed an 

application for DIB and SSI, alleging that his disability began on March 10, 2014. (Transcript 

("Tr.") 248-63.) Canada's application was initially denied on December 1, 2020, and upon 

reconsideration on March 19, 2021. (Tr. 153-56, 158-61, 164-68.) A hearing with an 

1 

Case 4:22-cv-00867-BJ Document 23 Filed 09/18/23 Page 1 of 14 PageID 2982
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") was held on November 9, 2021. (Tr. 48.) The ALJ 

subsequently reviewed the facts of Canada's case and issued a decision denying Canada's claims 

on December 7, 2021. (Tr. 20-42.) In his decision, the ALJ found that Canada had not been under 

a disability, as defined in the SSA, from March 10, 2014, through the date of the decision. (Tr. 

42.) On July 29, 2022, the Appeals Council denied Canada's request for review, making the ALJ's 

decision the Commissioner's final decision. (Tr. 7-9.) Canada then filed this civil action under 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g), requesting judicial review of the ALJ's decision. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Disability insurance is governed by Title II, 42 U.S.C. § 404 et seq., and SSI benefits are 

governed by Title XVI, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., of the SSA. In addition, numerous regulatory 

provisions govern disability insurance and SSI benefits. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404 (DIB); 20 C.F.R. 

Pt. 416 (SSI). Although technically governed by different statutes and regulations, "[t]he law and 

regulations governing the determination of disability are the same for both disability insurance 

benefits and SSL" Greenspan v. Shala/a, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994). 

The SSA defines a disability as a medically determinable physical or mental impairment 

lasting at least twelve months that prevents the claimant from engaging in substantial gainful 

activity. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d), 1382c(a)(3)(A); McQueen v. Apfel, 168 F.3d 152, 154 (5th Cir. 

1999). To determine whether a claimant is disabled, and thus entitled to disability benefits, a fivestep analysis is employed. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. First, the claimant must not be 

presently working at any substantial gainful activity. Substantial gainful activity is defined as 

work activity involving the use of significant physical or mental abilities for pay or profit. 20 

C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.972. Second, the claimant must have an impairment or combination of 

impairments that is severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c); Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 

2 

Case 4:22-cv-00867-BJ Document 23 Filed 09/18/23 Page 2 of 14 PageID 2983
1099, 1101 (5th Cir. 1985), cited in Loza v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 378, 392 (5th Cir. 2000). Third, 

disability will be found if the impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals an 

impairment listed in the Listing of Impairments ("Listing"), 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. I. 

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). Fourth, if disability cannot be found on the basis of the 

claimant's medical status alone, the impairment or impairments must prevent the claimant from 

returning to his past relevant work ("PRW"). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). And fifth, 

the impairment must prevent the claimant from doing any work, considering the claimant's residual 

functional capacity ("RFC"), age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(£), 

416.920(£); Crowley v. Apfel, 197 F.3d 194, 197-98 (5th Cir. 1999). At steps one through four, 

the burden of proof rests upon the claimant to show he is disabled. Crowley, 197 F.3d at 198. If 

the claimant satisfies this responsibility, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that there 

is other gainful employment the claimant is capable of performing in spite of his existing 

impairments. Id. 

A denial of disability benefits is reviewed only to determine whether the Commissioner 

applied the correct legal standards and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence 

in the record as a whole. Leggett v. Chafer, 67 F.3d 558, 564 (5th Cir. 1995); Hollis v. Bowen, 

837 F.2d 1378, 1382 (5th Cir. 1988). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a 

responsible mind might accept to supp01i a conclusion. Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698, 704 (5th Cir. 

2001 ). It is more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Id. A finding of no 

substantial evidence is appropriate only if no credible evidentiary choices or medical findings 

support the decision. Id. This Court may neither reweigh the evidence in the record nor substitute 

its judgment for the Commissioner's, but will carefully scrutinize the record to determine if the 

3 

Case 4:22-cv-00867-BJ Document 23 Filed 09/18/23 Page 3 of 14 PageID 2984
evidence is present. Harris v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2000); Hollis, 837 F.2d at 1383. 1 

III. ISSUE 

In his brief, Canada presents the following issue: Whether the ALJ failed to support his 

RFC determination with substantial evidence by failing to properly evaluate the opinion evidence. 

(Pl.'s Br. at 1.) 

IV. ALJ DECISION 

In his December 7, 2021, decision, the AL.T performed the five-step sequential evaluation 

process for determining whether a person is disabled. (Tr. 20-42.) The ALJ first noted that Canada 

met the insured status requirements of the SSA through September 30, 2014. (Tr. 25-26.) The 

ALJ then stated that Canada had engaged in substantial gainful activity from January 1, 2016, 

through March 31, 2020, after the alleged onset date of disability, but added that, "[g]iven the short 

duration of both these jobs and the limited earnings information available, I find that this work 

activity does not constitute substantial gainful activity." (Tr. 26-27.) The ALJ then noted that 

there had been a continuous twelve-month period during which the claimant did not engage in 

substantial gainful activity. (Tr. 27.) At Step Two, the ALJ fonnd that Canada had the following 

severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, neurocognitive disorder, major 

depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. (Tr. 27.) At Step Three, the ALJ found that 

Canada did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled 

any section in the Listing. (Tr. 28.) 

As to Canada's RFC, the ALJ stated the following: 

After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant has the 

1 There are four elements of proof that must be weighed in determining whether substantial evidence of 

disability exists: (I) objective medical facts; (2) diagnoses and opinions of treating and examining physicians; (3) the 

claimant's subjective evidence of pain and disability; and (4) the claimant's age, education, and work history. See 

Wren v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 123, 126 (5th Cir. 1991). 

4 

Case 4:22-cv-00867-BJ Document 23 Filed 09/18/23 Page 4 of 14 PageID 2985
residual functional capacity to perform medium work as defined in 20 CFR 

404. l 567(c) and 416.967(c) except the claimant can: frequently handle, finger, and 

feel with bilateral upper extremities; frequently climb, balance, stoop, kneel, 

crouch, and crawl; and can understand, remember, and carry out simple tasks and 

instructions. 

(Tr. 30 (emphasis omitted)). Finally, the ALJ opined, "considering the claimant's age, education, 

work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers 

in the national economy that claimant can perform." (Tr. 41.) Consequently, the ALJ found that 

Canada was not disabled. (Tr. 42.) 

V. DISCUSSION 

Canada argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion evidence in making his 

RFC determination. (Pl. 's Br. at I.) Specifically, Canada takes issue with the ALJ's decision 

finding the opinions of Peggy Auguste, PsyD ("Dr. Auguste"), and Helene Alphonso, DO ("Dr. 

Alphonso") unpersuasive. (Pl. 's Br. at 9.) The bulk of Canada's argument focuses on Dr. 

Alphonso's examination, about which Canada states: 

In the present case, Dr. Alphonso opined Plaintiff had marked or greater 

limitations in all four categories of mental functioning, as well as significant 

limitations off-task time and absences. The ALJ found this opinion unpersuasive, 

noting the opinion was not well explained and conflicted with Plaintiffs work 

history as a driver. The ALJ also found the opinion inconsistent with consultative 

examination rep01iing and unsupported by Dr. Alphonso's own treatment notes. 

However, the ALJ's reasoning lacks explanation and relies on cherry-picked 

evidence. These errors warrant remand. 

(Pl. 's Br. at 9.) 

Canada asserts that the ALJ cherry-picked evidence by ignoring evidence that suggested 

that Canada was disabled and selecting only the evidence that supported the ALJ's position. (Pl. 's 

Br. at 10.) According to Canada, his overall treatment history shows an extensive history of 

"regularly significant mental status exam findings," including "moderate to severe depression, 

nervousness, ... anxiety, flat to restricted affect, slow speech with prolonged latency, poor 

5 

Case 4:22-cv-00867-BJ Document 23 Filed 09/18/23 Page 5 of 14 PageID 2986
concentration, and motor retardation." (Pl.'s Br. at 11.) Canada points to the ALJ's treatment of 

Dr. Auguste's medical opinion as an example of the ALJ discounting evidence unfavorable to his 

position. Id. Canada asserts that the ALJ discounted Dr. Auguste's opinion that "Plaintiff had 

significant impairments in his ability to do work activities such as sit, stand, move about, lift, carry, 

and handle objects due to memory issues, tremors, and chronic back pain," without giving a 

sufficient explanation as to why. (Plaintiffs Reply at 3.) 

Furthermore, Canada argues that the ALJ failed to adequately explain his finding that 

Canada's work history and the findings of other medical sources and examiners were inconsistent 

with Dr. Alphonso's opinion. (Pl.'s Br. at 12; Tr. 39.) Specifically, Canada states: 

[T]he VE identified Plaintiffs past work as a driver as light work and testified that 

Plaintiff would be unable to perform that work with the ALJ's proposed RFC. AR 

67-68. The ALJ seemingly agreed with this conclusion as he too found Plaintiff 

was incapable of performing his past relevant work. AR 40. Therefore, it is bizarre 

that the ALJ would find Plaintiffs past work as a driver in conflict with Dr. 

Alphonso's opinion, as both would appear to agree that Plaintiff would be incapable 

of continuing to perform that job. All the ALJ has done is provide a conclusory 

statement that appears to contradict his own findings. While the ALJ is free to 

accept or reject opinions, the ALJ ... must explain his decision. 

(Pl. 's Br. at 12.) 

In response, the Commissioner asserts that the ALJ considered the opinions of Dr. Auguste 

and Dr. Alphonso but found inconsistencies between these opinions and evidence in the record. 

(Defendant's Brief ("Def.'s Br.") at 6.) Regarding Dr. Alphonso's opinion, the Commissioner 

argues that, although Dr. Alphonso "indicated the Plaintiff 'gets very anxious in new situations 

and avoids ADL's like shopping that require interacting with others' and 'will get anxious and 

forget easily,' the ALJ noted that Plaintiff had engaged in daily routine activities ... including 

driving cars, parking cars, and cleaning offices." (Def.'s Br. at 8.) The Commissioner further 

argues that the ALJ supported his conclusion that "[t]he longitudinal treatment history has 

6 

Case 4:22-cv-00867-BJ Document 23 Filed 09/18/23 Page 6 of 14 PageID 2987
remained disproportionate to the nature and severity of dysfunction rep01ied," with the fact that 

Canada's treatment was limited to medication management and that Canada had declined 

counseling and treatment referrals. (Def. 's Br. at 9.) Finally, with regard to Dr. Auguste's opinion 

that Canada had a significant impairment in his ability to do certain physical work activities, the 

Commissioner points out that the ALJ in fact did consider this opinion and that the ALJ found i_t 

unpersuasive because it assessed limitations outside the area of expertise of a psychological 

examiner and was inconsistent with mental status findings reflected in the remainder of the record. 

(Def. 's Br. at 9-10.) 

An RFC is what an individual can still do despite his limitations.2 Social Security 

Regulation ("SSR") 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *2 (SSA July 2, 1996). It reflects the individual's 

maximum remaining ability to do sustained work activity in an ordinaty work setting on a regular 

and continuing basis. Id.; see Myers v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 617, 620 (5th Cir. 2001). A regular and 

continuing basis is an eight-hour day, five days a week, or an equivalent schedule. SSR 96-8p, 

1996 WL 374184, at *2. An RFC is not the least an individual can do but the most. Id. The RFC 

is a function-by-function assessment, with both exe1iional and nonexertional3 factors to be 

considered, and it is based upon all of the relevant evidence in the case record. Id. at 3-6. The 

responsibility for determining a claimant's RFC lies with the ALJ. See Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 

1019, I 023-24 (5th Cir. 1990). The ALJ must discuss the claimant's ability to perform sustained 

2 The Commissioner's analysis at steps four and five of the disability evaluation process is based on the 

assessment of the claimant's RFC. Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 461--02 (5th Cir. 2005). The Commissioner 

assesses the RFC before proceeding from step three to step four. Id 

3 Exe1tional capacity addresses an individual's ability "to perform each of seven strength demands: Sitting, 

standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling." SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5. Each function must be 

considered separately, but the final RFC assessment may combine activities. Id. Nonexertional capacity "considers 

all work-related limitations and restrictions that do not depend on an individual's physical strength," including mental 

limitations. Id at *6. 

7 

Case 4:22-cv-00867-BJ Document 23 Filed 09/18/23 Page 7 of 14 PageID 2988
work activity on a regular and continuing basis and resolve any inconsistencies in the evidence. 

SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7. 

In making the RFC assessment, the ALJ must consider all symptoms, including pain, and 

the extent to which these symptoms can be reasonably accepted as consistent with objective 

medical evidence and other evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.929; SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, 

at *I (SSA Oct. 25, 2017); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5. The ALJ must also consider 

limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual's impairments, even impairments that 

are not severe. See SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 3 74184, at * 5. The ALJ may draw reasonable inferences 

from the evidence in making his decision, but the social security ruling also cautions that 

presumptions, speculation, and supposition do not constitute evidence. See e.g., SSR 86-8, 1986 

WL 68636, at *8 (1986), superseded by SSR 91-7c, 1991 WL 231791, at *1 (Aug. I, 1991) 

( changing the ruling only to the extent the SSR discusses the former procedures used to determine 

disability in children). 

The ALJ is not required to incorporate limitations in the RFC that he did not find the record 

supported. See Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 790 (5th Cir. 1991) ("The ALJ as factfinder has 

the sole responsibility for weighing the evidence and may choose whichever physician's diagnosis 

is most supported by the record."). In reviewing the ALJ's decision, a finding of no substantial 

evidence is appropriate only if no credible evidentiary choices or medical findings support the 

decision. Boyd, 239 F.3d at 704. 

The ALJ's treatment of medical opinions is governed by the revised rules in 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1520c, which apply to claims that were filed after March 27, 2017, such as the claims in the 

present case. See Winston v. Berryhill, 755 F. App'x 395,402 n.4 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing 20 C.F.R. 

404.1520c(a)); Governor v. Comm 'r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-54-BAJ-EWD, 2021 WL I 151580, at *6 

8 

Case 4:22-cv-00867-BJ Document 23 Filed 09/18/23 Page 8 of 14 PageID 2989
(M.D. La. Mar. 2, 2021). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a), the ALJ "will not defer or give 

any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior 

administrative medical finding(s), including those from [claimant's] medical sources." 

Additionally, "[w]hen a medical source provides one or more medical opinions4 or prior 

administrative medical findings, prior administrative findings are findings other than the ultimate 

determination about whether the claimant is disabled, about a medical issue made by the 

Commissioner's federal and state agency medical and psychological consultants at a prior level of 

review of the claimant's current claim based on their review of the evidence in the case record. 

Such findings could be on issues including: (i) the existence and severity of the claimant's 

impainnent(s); (ii) the existence and severity of the claimant's symptoms; (iii) statements about 

whether the claimant's impairment(s) meets or medically equals any listing in the Listing of 

Impairments in Paii 404, Subpart P, Appendix!; (iv) the claimant's RFC; (v) whether the claimant's 

impairment(s) meets the duration requirement; and (vi) how failure to follow prescribed treatment 

and drug addiction and alcoholism relate to the claimant's claim. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1413(a)(5). 

[The ALJ] will consider those medical opinions or prior administrative findings from that medical 

source together using the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(l) through (c)(5) of' section 

404.1520c(a), as appropriate." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a) (footnotes added). The ALJ is not 

4 Medical opinions are statements from a medical source about what the claimant can still do despite her 

impairment(s) and whether the claimant has one or more impairment-related limitations or restrictions in ce11ain 

abilities. These may include claimant's ability to: (i) perform physical demands of work activities, such as sitting, 

standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions (including manipulative or postural 

functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping, or crouching); (ii) perform mental demands of work activities, such 

as understanding; remembering; maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace; canying out instructions; or 

responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers, or work pressures in a work setting; (iii) perform other demands 

of work, such as seeing, hearing, or using other senses; and, (iv) adapt to environmental conditions) such as 

temperature extremes or fumes. See 20 C.F.R. § 404. I 5 I 3(a)(2). 

9 

Case 4:22-cv-00867-BJ Document 23 Filed 09/18/23 Page 9 of 14 PageID 2990
required to articulate how he considered each medical opinion or prior administrative medical 

findings from one medical source individually. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(l). 

"The most important factors [the ALJ] consider[s] when evaluat[ing] the persuasiveness of 

medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings are suppmiability (paragraph (c)(l) of 

this section) and consistency (paragraph (c)(2) of this section)." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a). "The 

ALJ must explain the supportability and consistency factors for a medical source's medical 

opinions or prior administrative medical findings in his determination, and he may, but is not 

required to, explain how he considered the ( c )(3) [through] ( c )(5) factors, i.e., relationship with the 

claimant, specialization, and 'other factors."' Governor, 2021 WL 1151580, at *7. 

In this case, the ALJ found, as stated above, that Canada has the RFC to "frequently handle, 

finger, and feel with bilateral upper extremities; frequently climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, 

and crawl; and can understand, remember, and carry out simple tasks and instructions." (Tr. 30 

(emphasis omitted)). In making the RFC determination, the ALJ considered, inter alia, the 

medical evidence in the record and the opinions of Peggy Auguste, PsyD, and Helene Alphonso, 

DO. Relying on this evidence, the ALJ found that "the level of activity and the limited nature of 

clinical findings remains unsupportive of the severity alleged through the lengthy relevant period 

since the alleged onset date." (Tr. 37.) The ALJ reasoned as follows: 

In sum, the above residual functional capacity assessment is suppo11ed by 

the objective medical evidence including radiological imaging, laborat01y testing 

results, diagnostic and clinical findings, and other evidence provided in treatment 

and examination records. The above residual functional capacity assessment is also 

supp011ed by medical and psychological opinion evidence, without contradictory 

treating medical source opinion evidence that is supported by the objective medical 

evidence. Other factors supp011ing the residual functional capacity assessment 

includes the claimant's longitudinal treatment hist01y and work history. 

(Tr. 40.) 

10 

Case 4:22-cv-00867-BJ Document 23 Filed 09/18/23 Page 10 of 14 PageID 2991
In providing reasoning for his determination of Canada's RFC, the ALJ first addressed Dr. 

Auguste's findings, noting that: 

[Dr. Auguste] indicated that based on the evidence obtained, the claimant 

was demonstrating significant impairment in his ability to do work activities such 

as sit, stand, move about, lift, carry, and handle objects due to memory issues, 

tremors, and chronic back pain. He was assessed as demonstrating impairment in 

his ability to reason and to make occupational, personal, and social adjustments, 

and demonstrates concentration problems and impaired memory (4F/9-10). 

However, the assessment was not persuasive, including numerous assessed 

limitations outside the area of expertise of the psychological examiner. The issues 

identified in physical functioning did not define and identify a specific functional 

assessment but did include assessed areas of physical deficits that were not 

suppotted by the examination findings apart from the subjective statements 

provided. The nature of mental deficits identified were also less consistent with the 

nature of mental status findings apart from the subjectively repotted degree of 

issues present, and also remains less consistent with the mental status findings 

reflected in the remainder of the record. The issues with concentration cited was 

inconsistent with testing that indicated adequate concentration and attention during 

testing, and findings that supported good judgment, inconsistent with the adaptive 

issues assessed (4F/l-9). The functional assessments of physical and mental areas 

affected by Dr. Auguste were evaluated in the context of mental status findings 

from the consultative examination and in the course of treatment from other sources 

as well as other evidence of functioning including work activity and activities of 

daily living and were not determined to be persuasive. 

(Tr. 38-39.) Next, the ALJ summarized Dr. Alphonso's opinion, stating: 

Dr. Alphonso assessed the claimant would be markedly limited in the ability to 

understand, remember, or apply information, in the ability to interact with others, 

and in the ability to concentrate, persist, or maintain pace, with extremely limited 

ability to adapt or manage oneself (7F/4, SF/7). Short term memory was assessed 

as markedly limited while long-term memory was moderately limited, while 

remembering locations and work-like procedures were markedly limited, 

understanding and carrying out very short and simple instructions was moderately 

limited, and understanding and carrying out detailed but uninvolved instructions 

was extremely limited. The claimant was assessed as able to maintain attention and 

concentration for less than 30 minutes, would not be able to maintain regular 

attendance and be punctual with customary tolerances, and would require enhanced 

supervision. He would sometimes be able to work appropriately with the public and 

coworkers, but not with supervisors and would need positive reinforcement from 

supervisors (7F/5, SF/8). However, while able to maintain socially appropriate 

behavior, would not be able to respond appropriately to changes in the work setting, 

and would be off task for more than 25% of the workday and estimated four or 

more days per month likely to be absent (7F/6, SF/9). 

11 

Case 4:22-cv-00867-BJ Document 23 Filed 09/18/23 Page 11 of 14 PageID 2992
Finally, the ALJ then explained why he was not persuaded by Dr. Alphonso's findings: 

However, the nature and severity of dysfunction was not well explained with 

limited clinical findings cited in support, with the degree and range of deficits that 

was inconsistent with the aclmowledged years of work activity as a driver. The 

degree of deficits in attention and concentration, memory, cognitive function, 

interactive and adaptive capacity were also inconsistent with the nature of testing 

results and mental status findings provided in consultative examination reporting 

(4F/3-9). The severity of dysfunction was also inconsistent with treatment notes 

from Dr. Alphonso that supported responsiveness to mental health treatment 

identified in the functional assessment (IF/60-62, 71-72, 76, 121, 132-133, 169, 

170-173, 6F/17-24, 189-194). The severity and range of dysfunction assessed 

dating back to 2012 by Dr. Alphonso remains inconsistent with corresponding 

examination and treatment notes, including the frequency of absences with marked 

to extreme deficits present which were unsupp01ted by the documented frequency 

of follow-up and clinical findings that did not support the severity or progression 

of issues that would support the frequency of absences assessed, and was not 

determined to be persuasive as compared with the remainder of the record. 

(Tr. 39-40.) 

As noted above, the ALJ is responsible for assessing a claimant's RFC based on all the 

relevant evidence in the record. If substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ's 

determination of a claimant's RFC, there is no reversible error. See Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 2005 

WL1994289, at *7 (5th Cir. 2005). At issue, here, is the ALJ's treatment of the medical opinions 

of Dr. Auguste and Dr. Alphonso. 

As previously stated, the ALJ, in making his determination, found Dr. Auguste's opinion 

unpersuasive, in pait, because the opinion included "numerous assessed limitations outside the 

area of expertise of the psychological examiner." (Tr. 38.) Furthermore, the ALJ found Dr. 

Auguste's opinion "assessed areas of physical deficits that were not supported by the examination 

findings apmt from the subjective statements provided." (Tr. 38.) Finally, the ALJ noted that 

"[t]he nature of mental deficits identified were also less consistent with the nature of mental status 

findings apart from the subjectively reported degree of issues present, and also remains less 

12 

Case 4:22-cv-00867-BJ Document 23 Filed 09/18/23 Page 12 of 14 PageID 2993
consistent with the mental status findings reflected in the remainder of the record." (Tr. 38-39.) 

Regarding Dr. Alphonso's opinion, the ALJ found the opinion unpersuasive because it 

"was not well explained" and included only "limited clinical findings cited in suppmi." (Tr. 39.) 

Moreover, the ALJ found that "the degree and range of deficits ... was inconsistent with the 

acknowledged years of work activity as a driver." (Tr. 39.) In his assessment of the opinions of 

Dr. Auguste and Dr. Alphonso, the ALJ explained in detail why he found their opinions to be 

unpersuasive. (Tr. 38-39.) The reasoning provided by the ALJ specifically reflects the 

suppmiability and consistency factors, as the ALJ noted that the RFC assessments were not 

consistent, as a whole, with the treatment records and objective evidence. (Tr. 38-39.) 

Based on the foregoing, the Comi finds that the ALJ properly considered the evidence as 

a whole. Utilizing not only patis of Dr. Auguste's and Dr. Alphonso's opinions, but also the other 

medical evidence of record, the ALJ appropriately determined Canada's RFC. The ALJ discussed 

the evidence in the record in making his RFC determination, adequately explained the reasoning 

for giving less weight to certain evidence, and exercised his responsibility as factfinder in weighing 

the evidence and in choosing to incorporate limitations into his RFC assessment that were most 

suppo1ied by the record. See, e.g., Muse, 925 F.2d at 790. Because there is substantial evidence 

in the record that supports the ALJ's RFC determination, remand is not required. 

Moreover, even assuming, without deciding, that the ALJ was required to specifically 

atiiculate his evaluation of the medical opinions using all five factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. 

404.1530c(c)(3), the Comi finds that the ALJ did so. 

13 

Case 4:22-cv-00867-BJ Document 23 Filed 09/18/23 Page 13 of 14 PageID 2994
CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the ALJ's decision is AFFIRMED in all respects. 

SIGNED September 18, 2023. 

( 

RETON 

TATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

14 

Case 4:22-cv-00867-BJ Document 23 Filed 09/18/23 Page 14 of 14 PageID 2995