Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150217_0000158.NAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-04-25 12:25:43
Document Index: 10215865

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 404', 'art, 395', '§1', '§1', 'art, 395', 'art, 355']

PATRICIA A. WILSON, Claimant,
On June 8, 2010, the claimant, Patricia A. Wilson, protectively filed a Title II application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. She initially alleged onset of her disability beginning February 15, 2008, a date that she later amended to August 1, 2009. The Social Security Administration denied all of her claims on October 14, 2010. The claimant then filed a written request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge on December 2, 2010. The ALJ held a video conference hearing on May 22, 2012.
In a decision dated August 2, 2012, the ALJ found that the claimant was not disabled as defined by the Social Security Act and thus was ineligible for disability benefits. (R. 21). The Appeals Council then denied the claimant's request for review and the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. (R. 1). The claimant exhausted her administrative remedies, and this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). For the reasons stated below, this court will AFFIRM the decision of the Commissioner.
The claimant argues that the Commissioner erred in two ways. First, the claimant alleges that the Commissioner's decision should be reversed because the ALJ failed to discuss the claimant's obesity and right ankle arthritis in developing her RFC as required by SSR 02-lp. Second, the claimant alleges that the Commissioner's decision should be reversed because the ALJ failed to include the required "function-by-function" assessment.
The court must keep in mind that opinions, such as whether a claimant is disabled, the nature and extent of a claimant's residual functional capacity, and the application of vocational factors "are not medical opinions, ... but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case; i.e., that would direct the determination or decision of disability." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). Whether the claimant meets the listing and is qualified for Social Security disability benefits is a question reserved for the ALJ, and the court "may not decide facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the Commissioner." Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). Thus, even if the court were to disagree with the ALJ about the significance of certain facts, the court has no power to reverse that finding as long as substantial evidence in the record supports it.
Under Social Security Regulation 02-1p, the ALJ must consider obesity along with his other determinations. SSR 02-1p. Because no listing for obesity exists, the regulations state that "we will find that an individual with obesity "meets" the requirements of a listing if he or she has another impairment that, by itself, meets the requirements of a listing. We will also find that a listing is met if an impairment that, in combination with obesity, meets the requirements of a listing....'" Lewis v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 487 F.Appx. 481, 483 (11th Cir. 2012).
Medical Listing §1.02 (Major dysfunction of a joint(s)) states:
§1.02 is characterized by gross anatomical deformity (e.g., subluxation, contracture, bony or fibrous ankylosis, instability) and chronic joint pain and stiffness with signs of limitation of motion or other abnormal motion of the affected joint(s), and findings on appropriate medically acceptable imaging of joint space narrowing, bony destruction, or ankylosis of the affected joint(s), with: (a) involvement of one major peripheral weight-bearing joint (i.e., hip, knee, or ankle), resulting in inability to ambulate effectively, as defined in 1.00B2b; or (b) involvement of one major peripheral joint in each upper extremity (i.e., shoulder, elbow, or wrist-hand), resulting in inability to perform fine and gross movements effectively, as defined in 1.00B2c.
Social Security Ruling 96-8p provides guidance regarding RFC assessments:
SSR 96-8p at *4-*5. However, the ALJ is not required to "specifically refer to every piece of evidence in his decision, " so long as the decision is sufficient to show that the ALJ considered the claimant's medical condition as a whole. Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Castel, 355 F.Appx. at 263.
The ALJ must clearly articulate the weight he affords to each item of evidence and the reasons for the decision so that the reviewing court can determine whether his ultimate decision is based upon substantial evidence. Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981).
In making a claim for disability benefits, the claimant bears the initial burden of establishing the existence of a disability and is responsible for producing evidence in support of her claim. Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003). The social security regulations place a very heavy burden on the claimant ...