NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0218n.06 No. 09-5623 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
GORDON G ANT, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v.
COMMI SSI ONER OF SOCI AL SECURI TY, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE W ES TER

N DI S TR I CT OF TENNESSEE

B e fo re : MA RTI

N, SI L ER, and

MO OR E, Cir c uit

Judg e s. SILE R , Circuit Judge
. Plaintiff G ordon Gant appea ls the district court’s de cision upholding the Commis s ioner’s de nial of disability benef its. W e re view the de cision of the district cour t de
novo. W hite v. Comm’r of Soc. Se c. , 572 F .3 d 272 , 281 (6 th Cir . 2 00 9) . F or the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , we a ff ir m. Ga nt ap pli e d f

or Soc ia l Se c ur ity

be ne fi ts, ba sin g his c la im o n th e fo llo wi ngc on dit ion s: deg ener ative disc disea se, spinal stenosis, cong estive hea rt failure , hy

p erte nsion, cardiova scular disease, r heumatoid ar

thriti s , o s t eoar

thritis, prostate disorder, a nd sleep a

pnea. I n 2007, the
a dmi nis tr a tiv e law j ud g e (“ AL J”) fo un d that: (1 ) Ga nt me t the dis a

bil ity ins ur e d s tatus re qu ir e me nts throug h Dec ember

31, 2004; (2) he ha s not eng ag ed in substantial g ainful activity since the a lleg ed
on se t of dis a bil ity ; ( 3) he ha s se ve re imp a ir me nts : de g e ne ra

tiv e dis c dis e a se of the lum ba r spi ne wi th history of surg ery , cong estive hea rt failure , hy

perte nsion, and obst ructive sleep apnea; however, heNo. 09-5623

Gant v. Commissi oner

- 2 - does not have impairments, either a lone or in combination, that mee t or equal the re quirements of any listed impairment contained in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, a nd 404.1526; (4) Ga

nt’s
su bje c tiv e a lle g a tio ns we re no t e nti re ly c re dib le ; ( 5) he ha s th e res idu a l f un c tio na l c a

pa c ity to perf orm a si gn i fi cant rang e of se dentar y work, a lthough he is unable to perf orm his past releva

nt work; (6) based on voc ational testimony and conside ring Gant’s a g e, educ ation, past work experience , and re sidual functional ca p ac ity , there are signific ant numbers of jobs in the national economy that he ca

n perf orm; (7) he was not under a disability as defined by Title I I of t he Social Security Act at a ny time from J uly

2, 2003 throug h Dec ember 31, 2004, the date la st insured. “We must af

fi rm the Commiss ioner’s c onclusions absent a de termination that the Commi ssioner has f

ailed to apply

the cor rec t leg al standar ds or has made finding s of fa ct unsupported by

substantial evidence in the rec ord.” Colvin v. Barnhardt , 475 F.3d 727, 729 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (inter

nal quotation m ar k s o mitted). An individual is eligible for social sec urity

benef its on the b a s is o f f

in an c ia l n e e d an d e it

h e r a g e , b li n dn e s s , o r d is a b il it y . 4 2 U
. S. C. § 1 3 8 2 ( a )
. An individual will onl y

be dete rmined to be unde r a disability if his impairme nt or

impairments are of such seve rity

that he is not only

u n ab l e t o d o h i s previous wor k, but cannot, conside ring his ag e,
e du c a tio n a

nd wo rk e xpe ri e nc e , e ng a g e in any oth e r k ind of su bs tanti a l g a inf

ul w or k w hic h e xists in the national ec onomy . Id . § 1382c(a )(3) (B ). Th is case ari se s o ut o f t

he AL J’s f

ind ingthat G ant h a s th e re sid ua l f un c tio na l c a

pa c ity to perf orm a sig nificant number

of jobs in the national economy . The Com missioner had the bur den of identifying “ a s i gn i fica nt number of jobs in the ec onomy that acc ommodate the cla imant’s residual f unctioning c apac ity .” Jones v . Comm ’rof Soc. Sec

. , 336 F.3d 469, 474 ( 6th Cir. 2003).No. 09-5623

Gant v. Commissi oner

- 3 - The AL J based his finding on t h e t es t i m ony of a voc ational expert (“V E”) in r esponse to a hy pothetical question. The VE t estified that a hy pothetical individual with Gant’s phy sical impairments as identified by Kamal J. Mohan, M.D., could p erf orm the sede ntary

jobs of office helper , bill sorter, and re ceptionist. The VE f urther te stified that, reg ionally , there are 11,000 such jobs and, nationally , there are 570,080 such jobs. Gant conte nds that this finding is not supported by su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e (1 ) be c a us e the AL J in a

pp ro pr iate ly

re je c te d me dic a l op ini on

te sti mony

in formulating the hy

pothetical question to the VE, a nd (2) be cause the AL J ’s h y p o t h etical que stion t o t h e V E d i d

n o ti n c l u d e an y r e s t r i c t i o n s f r o m G an t ’ s s l e e p a

p n e a o r o b e s i t y. The AL J discredited the medical opinion of Ang ela D. Watson, D.O., G ant’s treating phy sician, bec ause she failed to submit rec ords s upporting her findings and beca use her assessment was inconsistent with the re cord a s a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (4) ( “Ge nera lly , the more consistent an opinion is with the recor d as a w hole, the more weig ht we will give to that opinion.”). Dr. Watson’s treatment notes do not fully sup p o rt h er November 14, 2004 opinion. In fac t, her treatment notes from May 2004 to F ebrua ry 2006 reve al no sig nificant finding s. Be cause the re cord adequately

supports the finding that Dr. Watson ’s m edica l opinion was not supported by her ow n tr e a tme nt not e s and

wa s in c on sis te nt w iththe re c or d a s a wh ole , th e AL J wa s w arr ante d in discrediting her opinion. The AL J also discre dited the J anuar y 18, 2005 medical o p i nion of J esse E. Mc Gee , M.D., stating that Gant has sleep apnea and was 100 perc ent disabled. Conclusory medical opinions are p r o p e r l y d i s c o u n t e d

a s o n l y t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r c anm a k e t h e u l t i m a t e d e t e r m i n a t i o no f

d i s a b i l i t y. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e) (1). I n addition, D r. McGe e is a c ardiolog ist and not a sleep disorde rNo. 09-5623

Gant v. Commissi oner

- 4 - specia list. See 20 C.F.R. § 404. 1 5 2 7 (d )( 5 ) (more w eig ht should be g iven to a spec ialist about medical issues to his or her are a of specia lty than to the opinion of a sourc e who is not a spec ialist). Jame s M. An dr e ws , M .D ., wh o tr e a te d G ant’ s sl e e p a pn e a , o nly

op ine d th at G ant w a s f

un c tio na lly limit ed by h i s sleep apne a as to his ability to drive and ope rate heavy machiner

y . Moreove r, the
rec ord shows that Gant’s sleep apnea was controlled with a continuous airwa y pressure (“CPAP”) machine. B eca

use Dr. Mc Gee ’s medica l opinion about s leep apnea was inconsistent with the rec ord
as a w hole and r elated to a matter outsi d e h i s ar ea o f expertise, the AL J was wa rra nted in not
acc epting his opinion. The AL J found the August 30, 2005 me dical opinion of Rodney Olinge r, M.D., cr edible but deter mined that it was not releva nt beca use it did not relate to Gant’s limitations prior to Dece mber 31, 2004. Dr. Olinge r’s opinion wa s based on medic al observations taken afte r Ga nt’s insured status expired. Moreove r, Dr. O linge r did not state that his opinion related ba ck to Gant’ s condition prior to Dece mber 31, 2004. Similarly , the AL J found t he S eptember 1, 2006 medical opinion of Bar ry Sie g e l, M
. D
. , c r e d i b l e b u t n o t r e l e v an t b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t r e l a t e t o G an t ’ s l i m i t a t i o n s p r ior to Dec ember

31, 2004. The AL J found Dr. Moha n’s M ar ch 8 , 2005 medical opinion cr edible and r eleva nt. Dr. Mo ha n d ia g no sed Gan t withthe fo llo wi ng : c hr on ic low e r b a c k p a in, status po st l a min e c tomy in 1999; obstructive sleep a pnea, c urre ntly

using CPAP machine; hy p er t en s ion well controlled; pulmonary

hy perte nsion; obesity ; hy

persomnolenc e; bronchial asthma; hy perc holesterolemia; a

nd g astroespha g eal r eflux disease. He opined that Gant ha d the followi n g fu n ctional ca pacities a nd limit ations: lifting/car

rying twenty pounds occa sionally ; standing /walking at l east four hours i n aNo. 09-5623

Gant v. Commissi oner

- 5 - ei gh t -h o u r w o rk d ay , wi t

h b re ak s ; p er i o d i ca l l y

a l t e r n a t i n g s i t t i n g an d

s t an d i n g ; o c c a s i o n a l l y

c l i mb i n g, balanc ing, kne eling , crouc hing, c raw ling, or stooping; and limit ed in pushing/pulling w ith his upper and lower extremiti es. Dr. Moha n also identified Ga

nt’s environmenta l limi tations, which included te mpe r a tu r e e xtr e m e s , d u s t , h u m i d i t y

/ w e t n e s s , h a z ar d s , f

u m e s , o d o r s , c h e m i c a l s , an d g a s e s. Al tho ug h it wa s pro vid e d ap pr oximate ly tw o mont hs a ft e r t he e xpir a tio n o f G ant’ s in sure d s tatus , Dr. Mohan’ s medical opinion is consistent with the record evidence that exis ted prior to De cembe r 31, 2004. Consequently , substantial r ecor d evidenc e supports the AL J ’s deter mination to re ly

upon Dr. Mohan’ s medical opinion over the opinions of the other doc tors. See20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The V E ’s re s p o n s e t o t h e A L J ’s h y p o t h et i ca l qu es t i o nwa s re l i ab l e a n d co n s t i tutes substantial
e vid e nc e fo r de nying Ga

nt’ s app lic a tio n f

or be ne fi ts
. See V

arley v . Secre tary of Health & Human Servs
. , 8 2 0 F. 2 d 7 7 7 , 7 7 9 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 8 7 ) (s t at i n g t h at s u b s t an t i al ev i d en ce m ay b e p ro d u ce d t h ro u gh relianc e on the testimony of a voc ational expert in response to a hy pothetical if the que st ion
acc urate ly

portray s the plaintiff’s individual phy sical and mental i mpairments). Gant conte nds that the VE’s r esponse to the hy pothetical question relied on by the AL J is unr eliable be cause it did not inc lud e a ll o f h is l imi tatio ns . H ow e ver, in for mu latin g a hy po the tic a l qu e sti on , a

n A L J is on ly require d to incorporate those l i m i t at i o n s which he ha s deeme d cre dible. Stanley v. Se cretary of Health &Human Serv

s ., 39 F.3d 115, 118- 19 (6th Cir. 1994). Be cause the AL J proper ly discounted the me dic a l op ini on s o f t

he oth e r d oc tor s, he a lso pr op e rl y e xclu de d th e lim itatio ns a sse sse d b y tho se doctors fr om the hy

pothetical question. See id. Gant also c ontends that the AL J ’s hy pothetical question wa s faulty beca use it did not include any limit ations relate d to Gant’s slee p apnea or obesity . I mpairments that ar e co n t rollable orNo. 09-5623

Gant v. Commissi oner

- 6 - amena ble to treatment cannot support a f inding of disability
. See 20 C.F .R. § 4 04 .1 52 9( c ); se e als o Houston v. Sec retary of Health &Human Serv s ., 736 F.2d 365, 367 ( 6th Cir. 1984). Beca use the
rec ord indicate s that Gant’s slee p apnea was b ei n g controlled with treatment, there is substantial evidenc e to conc lude that he was not f unctionally

limit ed by

his sleep apne a. More over, the rec ord does not indicate that Gant’s obesity imposes limi tations that would preclude h i s p er forming the sedenta ry jobs identified by the VE. B eca use the hy

pothetical question included those limitations which the AL J found cr edible and e x cluded only those limit ations which w er e discredited f or a leg ally sufficie nt rea son, there is substantial evidence to support the Commi ssioner’s de termination that Gant can perf

orm a signific ant number of jobs in the national ec onomy . Se e Blac ha v . S e c re tar y of Health & Human Serv

s ., 927 F.2d 228, 231 ( 6th Cir. 1990). AF F IR M ED
.