Opinion ID: 3055001
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evaluation of Medical Opinions

Text: An ALJ uses a five-step evaluation to determine whether the claimant is disabled, which includes (1) whether the claimant is 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 specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments; (4) whether the claimant has the RFC to perform his past relevant work; and (5) whether, in light of the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), (c)- (f), 416.920(a)(4), (c)-(f); see also Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). In determining at steps four and five whether a claimant can perform his past relevant work or other work in the economy, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence.6 Phillips v. Barnhart, 5 Our review is limited to whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Under this limited standard of review, we do not make findings of fact, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. Id. 6 Residual functional capacity is what a claimant can do in a work setting despite any physical, mental, or environmental limitations caused by the claimant’s impairment and its 16 Case: 12-16166 Date Filed: 07/09/2013 Page: 17 of 24 357 F.3d 1232, 1238-39 (11th Cir. 2004); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). In assessing RFC, the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given different medical opinions and the reasons for doing so. Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987). Without this explanation, a reviewing court cannot determine whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. However, the ALJ’s explanation of the decision need not account for every piece of evidence. Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). In evaluating medical opinions, the ALJ considers many factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the doctor’s specialization, whether the opinion is amply supported, and whether the opinion is consistent with the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Generally, the opinions of examining physicians are given more weight than non-examining physicians, and the opinions of treating physicians are given more weight than non-treating physicians. See id. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2), 416.927(c)(1)-(2).