Opinion ID: 3059245
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Kuhl’s Claim

Text: Here, the ALJ’s finding that Kuhl’s depression was not a severe impairment is supported by substantial evidence. As the ALJ found, Kuhl was able to work as a driver until February 2008, when she quit her job to care for her ex-boyfriend who was injured in a motorcycle accident. Kuhl testified that she worked an average of 30 to 32 hours each week taking care of his personal needs, cooking and cleaning. Moreover, Kuhl’s mental status examinations (“MSEs”), conducted by A.C.O.R.N. staff over the treatment period, were consistently normal. According to the MSEs, Kuhl denied depressive symptoms and stated she saw improvement with Effexor. More recent diagnoses in the MSEs indicated that Kuhl’s depression was in partial remission.2 Kuhl argues that the ALJ failed to assess her credibility. Although the ALJ did not make an explicit credibility finding or specify the weight given to Kuhl’s testimony, he appears to have credited Kuhl’s testimony. Furthermore, “a lack of 2 Kuhl’s claim that the ALJ ignored her evidence from A.C.O.R.N. is belied by the record. The ALJ included a detailed and accurate review of Kuhl’s A.C.O.R.N. records and relied upon them (and Kuhl’s hearing testimony) in finding that Kuhl’s depression was not a severe impairment. In addition, the ALJ rejected the opinions of two state agency consultants finding no medically determinable mental impairment because they did not have the opportunity to review the A.C.O.R.N. records. 5 an explicit credibility finding becomes a ground for remand when credibility is critical to the outcome of the case.” Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th Cir. 1995). Kuhl’s testimony was not critical to her claim because she did not testify to any facts indicating that her depressive symptoms “significantly limited” her ability to do basic work activities. Kuhl testified that she: (1) sometimes wanted to hide from everyone and could not deal with people snapping at her, but that she got along very well with people ninety percent of the time; (2) cried daily, but believed Effexor helped her with the crying; and (3) had problems remembering to pay her bills. However, Kuhl did not testify that these issues significantly limited any basic work activity, such as carrying out and remembering simple instructions, using judgment, dealing with changes in routine work setting, or responding appropriately to supervision, coworkers or usual work situations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521(b), 416.921(b) (defining basic work activities). Finally, contrary to Kuhl’s claim on appeal, the ALJ properly considered Kuhl’s depression in combination with her physical impairments. The ALJ specifically noted that he had “given particular consideration to the claimant’s physical impairments and emotional impairments” in determining that Kuhl did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled a listed 6 impairment. See Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1224-25 (11th Cir. 2002) (concluding that the ALJ’s statement that the claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met a listed impairment was sufficient to show that the ALJ considered the combined effect of the impairments). In sum, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings and denial of benefits. AFFIRMED. 7