Opinion ID: 4516997
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ALJ Proceedings

Text: Kaplowitz filed an application for disability insurance benefits on July 26, 2013, alleging that she became unable to work on December 31, 1996 and that she was last covered by disability insurance on March 31, 2002. The Social Security 1 The sworn statement was similar to a deposition. Kaplowitz’s attorney asked Dr. Shapiro questions, and she gave answers under oath. The transcript of the sworn statement is 67 pages long. 5 Case: 18-12100 Date Filed: 03/17/2020 Page: 6 of 15 Administration denied her application on September 27, 2013 and denied her application for reconsideration on December 30, 2013. Kaplowitz appealed that denial to an Administrative Law Judge. The ALJ held a hearing and heard from Kaplowitz and two experts: Dr. Murray Gilman, a medical expert, and Lorin Lovely, a vocational expert whose testimony is not at issue in this case. Kaplowitz testified that she drove two to three hours a month and that she dressed herself but that she struggled and “[t]here were times” when she needed her husband’s help to dress. She testified that she cooked, folded laundry, mopped, swept, and vacuumed but that she could perform those tasks only “moderately” during the covered period. She also testified that she traveled from New Jersey to Florida by plane during that time. Dr. Gilman testified that he had reviewed Kaplowitz’s entire medical record and in his opinion she could have performed sedentary work during the covered period — that is, between December 31, 1996 and March 31, 2002. In his opinion she was impaired during the covered period but her impairment was not so significant as to keep her from being able to perform sedentary work. He also testified that Kaplowitz’s impairment grew worse in 2011 and that she could not have performed a sedentary job then. The ALJ also reviewed Dr. Shapiro’s three statements and all of the medical records that Kaplowitz provided. 6 Case: 18-12100 Date Filed: 03/17/2020 Page: 7 of 15 Based on a review of the “entire record,” the ALJ found that Dr. Shapiro’s opinions deserved little weight and that Dr. Gilman’s opinions deserved great weight. The ALJ also found that Kaplowitz’s testimony about the extent of her pain was not credible. As a result of those findings, the ALJ concluded that Kaplowitz was not disabled as defined under the relevant sections of the Social Security Act during the covered period and that she could have held a sedentary job during that time. The ALJ denied Kaplowitz’s application for disability insurance benefits.2 Kaplowitz appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Social Security Administration Appeals Council, which denied her request for review. 2 The Social Security Act and related regulations establish a five-step, sequential evaluation process to determine whether an applicant is disabled. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v), 416.920(a)(4)(i)–(v). Under that process, the ALJ must determine: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments; (4) based on a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment, whether the claimant can perform any of his or her past relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178. The ALJ in this case found that Kaplowitz’s impairments did not meet or equal the severity of the specified impairments under step three, so she was not disabled under the regulations. The ALJ also found under step four that Kaplowitz could have performed some of her past relevant work. 7 Case: 18-12100 Date Filed: 03/17/2020 Page: 8 of 15