Opinion ID: 44725
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Bortnick’s Opinion

Text: Taylor claims that the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Bortnick’s opinion is consistent with the totality of the evidence was not based on substantial evidence. Specifically, Taylor argues that the ALJ committed reversible error in relying on the opinion of Dr. Bortnick, asserting that Dr. Bortnick based his findings on the statements of McCaster, then a four-year old child, who was unaccompanied at the evaluation session, and that Dr. Bortnick allegedly failed to review all of McCaster’s medical and school records. Upon review of record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we find that the ALJ’s decision to give significant weight to Dr. Bortnick’s assessment is consistent with the totality of the evidence and Dr. Bortnick’s evaluation provides substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s findings. Although McCaster was unaccompanied when Dr. Bortnick evaluated him, Taylor brought McCaster to the evaluation and Dr. Bortnick noted that Taylor “provided information about [McCaster’s] history and current-status.” R2 at 373. Taylor claims that she would 5 have corrected McCaster’s misstatements; specifically, McCaster indicated that he performed self-care activities by himself, whereas Taylor testified that McCaster wet himself approximately every two days and that she sent extra clothes to school and dressed him. Even assuming Taylor would have clarified this discrepancy, these facts alone would not support a finding that McCaster had marked or severe limitations in light of the other medical evidence of record that supports Dr. Bortnick’s assessment and the ALJ’s decision. The State Agency physicians determined that McCaster had impairments of mixed developmental delay and some motor delay, but that these impairments did not meet, medically equal, or functionally equal, an impairment as listed in the applicable regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(d). Both State Agency physicians found that McCaster’s functioning was either less than marked or had no limitation in the areas of acquiring and using information, interacting and relating with others, moving about and manipulating objects, caring for one’s self, and health and physical well-being. Additionally, while Taylor asserts that school records revealed instances of misbehavior, the school and care records also reflected instances of acceptable behavior.1 Dr. Bortnick’s conclusion regarding McCaster’s functional ability is 1 Although the ALJ did not specifically discuss McCaster’s school records, “[o]ur standard of review is . . . whether the ALJ’s conclusion as a whole was supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We do not require the ALJ to “specifically refer to every piece of evidence in his decision,” so 6 supported by his medical findings and is consistent with the record as a whole. In sum, there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination that McCaster is no longer eligible for SSI payments.