Opinion ID: 2820422
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: ALJ’s Adverse Decision

Text: Following the hearing, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Hubbard was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. In the November 2012 9 Case: 14-14908 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 Page: 10 of 18 decision, the ALJ concluded that Hubbard had the following severe impairments: status-post burn injury, bulging discs at L3-L4 and L4-L5, degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, and status-post laminectomy and discectomy at L5S1. The ALJ determined that Hubbard’s severe impairments, considered singly or in combination, did not meet or equal a listed impairment in the disability regulations. In addition, the ALJ found that Hubbard had the residual functional capacity to perform medium work, with the exception that she should never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolding. After summarizing Hubbard’s medical records and testimony about her symptoms, the ALJ concluded that, although Hubbard’s impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, Hubbard’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms were not wholly credible. The ALJ largely found that Hubbard’s testimony was not supported by the medical evidence, which, according to the ALJ, showed the following: Hubbard had not suffered seizures or a stroke; her syncopal episodes may have been caused by drugs, rather than heart problems; the lesion on Hubbard’s pituitary gland was not a tumor, and no medical professional had opined that the lesion caused any limitations; and there was no medical evidence that Hubbard had any difficulties or permanent limitations following her back surgery. 10 Case: 14-14908 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 Page: 11 of 18 Moreover, the ALJ explained that Hubbard’s overall credibility was undermined for two additional reasons: First, the claimant alleges that she does not have enough money to seek medical care, but she is able to afford crack cocaine, cigarettes, and marijuana. It is discrediting that the claimant would chose [sic] to spend whatever extra money she does have on habits that are both illegal and cause her to have problems and feel bad, as she described at the emergency room presentation for her second syncopal episode. Second, the claimant testified at the hearing that she continued to perform work, specifically braiding hair, after the alleged onset of disability. . . . Although the claimant did not apparently work at substantial gainful activity levels, the work activity itself indicates that she is not as limited as she has alleged. Finally, the ALJ gave great weight to Dr. Williams’s and Dr. Weirson’s assessments of Hubbard’s physical and mental impairments and also credited the testimony of the vocational expert. Overall, the ALJ determined that Hubbard had the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work as a hair braider, billing clerk, customer service representative, phlebotomist, medical clerk, or sales representative in advertising, all of which involved sedentary to light work. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Hubbard was not disabled for purposes of receiving disability benefits. E. Appeals Council Review and District Court Affirmance Hubbard requested review by the Appeals Council, and she submitted additional medical evidence from 2013. The Appeals Council denied review, 11 Case: 14-14908 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 Page: 12 of 18 stating that the medical records were for a later period of time than that covered by the ALJ’s decision, a period that ended November 30, 2012. Hubbard then filed a pro se complaint for review in federal court. She consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), and submitted numerous medical records, some of which had been submitted to the ALJ or Appeals Council and others that were new and post-dated the ALJ’s decision. The magistrate judge affirmed the Commissioner’s final decision, and Hubbard now brings this appeal.