Opinion ID: 49938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Osborn’s Credibility

Text: Osborn further argues that the ALJ erred by finding his claims incredible, first arguing that the ALJ ignored the report of the psychological consultant, who found that Osborn was not overstating his symptoms or exaggerating his pain. He also argues that the ALJ ignored the MRI of his cervical spine showing “severe abnormalities,” eventually requiring corrective surgery, as well as an MRI of his brain showing vascular defects and an MRI and EMG of his lumbar spine showing impairments reasonably capable of causing the neck, back, and head pain of which he complained. Osborn also argues that the ALJ failed to mention that his doctors determined that surgery was necessary because all other treatments had failed, and, therefore, failed to recognize that Osborn’s complaints were consistent with his wife’s report and the improperly rejected opinion of Abdulla. Where a claimant attempts to establish a disability through his own testimony, this Court uses a three-part “pain standard” to evaluate the claimant’s subjective symptoms. Holt v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th Cir. 1991). “The pain standard requires (1) evidence of an underlying medical condition and 21 either (2) objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged pain arising from that condition or (3) that the objectively determined medical condition is of such a severity that it can be reasonably expected to give rise to the alleged pain.” Id. If the ALJ chooses not to credit the claimant’s testimony, he must discredit it explicitly and articulate explicit and adequate reasons for doing so. Brown v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1233, 1236 (11th Cir. 1991). The regulations further direct that statements of pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that a claimant is disabled, but rather there must be medical signs and laboratory findings showing a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged, and, when considered with other evidence, would lead to a conclusion that the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). In reaching a conclusion regarding a claimant’s disability, the ALJ considers “all of the evidence presented, including information about your prior work record, your statements about your symptoms, evidence submitted by your treating or nontreating source, and observations by our employees and other persons.” Id. § 404.1529(c)(3). Inconsistencies or conflicts between a claimant’s statements and the other evidence are also considered. Id. § 404.1529(c)(4). Here, the ALJ explicitly found that Osborn’s “allegations [were] far out of 22 proportion to the degree of impairment established by the objective medical record. His persistent complaints do not, by themselves, support any restrictions other than those apparent as a result of his spine disorder.” Specifically, the ALJ found that Osborn had been prescribed medication for various reasons, but his most substantial treatment was spinal surgery that improved his condition. The ALJ noted that Osborn’s weight had remained stable without substantial interference from any alleged gastro-intestinal problems, and further noted that his blood pressure was controlled without evidence of “end-organ damage.” Finally, the ALJ found that Osborn’s depression, headaches, fatigue and other symptoms had been considered, but found minimal by his own doctors and the state agency consultants. Thus, the ALJ concluded that Osborn was “not fully credible in his allegations,” and gave weight to his statements only as corroborated in the medical record and not inconsistent with Osborn’s admitted activities, such as housework and computer consulting. As noted above in sub-issues b. and c., supra, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determination that neither Osborn’s depression nor his headaches were severe and disabling impairments within the meaning of the Act. The ALJ correctly noted that Osborn had been prescribed numerous medications for a variety of problems, but more importantly, properly considered Osborn’s daily 23 activities and the objective medical record when discrediting his testimony. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) and (c)(4). As previously discussed, the medical evidence in this case presents diagnoses, but no descriptions of limitations on Osborn’s functional capacity or ability to work other than the state agency assessments. The biggest limitation, as correctly identified by the ALJ, was Osborn’s degenerative back disease, but even as to that impairment, properly characterized as severe, Osborn’s subjective descriptions of symptoms and pain were not corroborated by any medical evidence, and, more importantly, were contradicted by his daily activities, which included household chores such as cooking, working at a computer, and driving the children to school in the morning. Osborn even performed some contract jobs working on computer equipment and performing data entry. As the ALJ noted at the hearing, while such work might not be substantial gainful activity, it clearly was inconsistent with Osborn’s disability claims. Thus, the ALJ explicitly articulated his reasons for discrediting Osborn’s testimony, and substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Osborn’s subjective complaints were overstated in light of the absence of medical records corroborating his claims. Osborn argues in his brief that the ALJ failed to ask and answer the question of whether Osborn had objectively determined impairments that reasonably could 24 be expected to produce the symptoms he described. The record, while it clearly shows that Osborn had degenerative disc disease, contains no objective evidence of Osborn’s limitations other than the state agency examinations that concluded that Osborn could function at a light level of work and suffered only a 7 percent impairment of his cervical range of motion and 14 percent impairment of his lumbar range of motion. As noted above, Dr. Abulla’s conclusory opinion was properly afforded little weight by the ALJ, see Edwards, 937 F.2d at 583, and, therefore, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s credibility determination in light of the absence of objective medical evidence supporting Osborn’s claims.