Opinion ID: 49938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Psychologist’s Report

Text: Osborn next argues that the ALJ failed to mention the psychological report done by Michele Martin, who diagnosed Osborn with depression and found that his work-related mental abilities were only “fair” in some respects. He argues that the ALJ violated his duties by failing to mention and explain why the report was rejected and further argues that, because the combination of Osborn’s impairments is what was disabling, the ALJ’s failure to correctly gauge one of those impairments was in error. Lastly, Osborn argues that the ALJ incorrectly concluded that his depression was “non-severe.” The regulations state that “[a]n impairment or combination of impairments is not severe if it does not significantly limit [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a). “Basic work activities” include: (1) physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling; (2) capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking; (3) understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions; 19 (4) use of judgment; (5) responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work situations; and (6) dealing with changes in a routine work setting. Id. § 404.1521(b)(1)-(6). We have explained that an “impairment is not severe only if the abnormality is so slight and its effect so minimal that it would clearly not be expected to interfere with the individual's ability to work, irrespective of age, education or work experience.” McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1031 (11th Cir. 1986). Osborn’s argument here is meritless. The ALJ specifically mentioned that, according to “the consultative examination report and state agency assessment[,]” depression had not significantly restricted Osborn’s ability to work. This finding was consistent with Martin’s evaluation, in which she concluded that, while Osborn suffered from depression, his ability to remember and follow simple or complex job instructions was fair, his ability to maintain attention and concentration was fair, his ability to interact with co-workers, supervisors, and the public was fair, and his ability to adhere to a schedule and meet work schedule and production norms was fair. She further concluded that Osborn’s judgment was good. Thus, Martin’s report, while evidence that Osborn suffered from depression, was also substantial evidence that the depression did not impair Osborn because it did not impair his ability to perform basic work activities. To the extent that 20 Osborn is arguing that the ALJ erred by failing to include the effect of Osborn’s “combination of impairments,” it was not error for the ALJ to disregard Osborn’s depression because it was not severe within the meaning of the regulations.