Opinion ID: 49938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Osborn’s Back Condition

Text: On appeal, Osborn first argues that the ALJ failed to evaluate his back condition before fusion surgery took place, and, therefore, failed to properly evaluate whether Osborn was disabled for the 21 months prior to the surgery that improved his condition. Thus, Osborn argues that he was entitled to disability 12 benefits from September 2001 until the surgery because the objective medical records prior to the surgery demonstrate the severity of his degenerative disc disease. We conclude that the ALJ did not err by failing to properly consider his back condition prior to fusion surgery. As we have held, the burden is on the claimant to prove that he is disabled, and here, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Osborn was not disabled because he could perform past relevant work at all times prior to the date of decision. See Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001) (“The burden is primarily on the claimant to prove that he is disabled, and therefore entitled to receive Social Security disability benefits.”). While Osborn alleged the onset of disability in 2001, his testimony was that he left his job because his contract expired, not that he was disabled. Moreover, Osborn’s brief relies on medical records from January 2002 and February and April 2003 to prove that the ALJ ignored the medical records. In January 2002, Dr. Kinnebrew diagnosed Osborn with degenerative disc disease, but five days later, when Osborn appeared for treatment in the form of steroid injections, his strength was noted to be five out five. At a second steroid injection, Osborn was found to be more mobile. In short, nothing in Kinnebrew’s diagnosis provides any objective evidence of Osborn’s limitations as a result of his back impairment, and, therefore, 13 the report does not contradict the ALJ’s findings in any way. Second, Osborn points to a February 2003 electromyography report indicating that Osborn suffered from long-standing multi-level nerve root irritation. However, a review of that report indicates only that Osborn suffered from an impairment—it provided no objective medical evidence proving that Osborn was incapable of performing past relevant work in spite of his impairment. Lastly, the crux of Osborn’s argument is that the ALJ erred because Abdulla’s opinion that Osborn was disabled was supported by numerous medical records that the ALJ ignored. Abdulla’s opinion, appearing twice in the record, was that although Osborn’s medical problems, viewed separately, were not disabling, the sum of all of his medical problems rendered him physically and socially dysfunctional, and, therefore, he was disabled. Abdulla’s letters, while they offer a conclusory opinion, do not indicate what, if any, limitations Osborn had as a result of his medical problems. Abdulla’s letters do not offer any evidence or insight into what Osborn was prevented from doing. While the record makes clear that Osborn suffered from degenerative disc disease, requiring surgery, there is no objective medical evidence of his limitations during that same time period. The only evidence in support of Osborn’s claims, other than Osborn’s (and his wife’s) own statements (discussed infra), was Abdulla’s letter. 14 In contrast, a state employee interviewed Osborn and observed no difficulties. In December 2002, Osborn’s strength was gauged at five out of five. On February 5, 2003, a Functional Capacity Assessment, completed prior to Osborn’s surgery, found that Osborn could lift or carry 20 or more pounds, frequently lift or carry 10 pounds, stand or walk about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday, sit about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday, and was unlimited in his ability to push and pull. One day later, a Range of Motion test concluded that Osborn was capable of reaching, pushing, pulling grasping, and fingering, and Osborn was found to have only a 7 percent impairment of his cervical range of motion and a 14 percent impairment of his lumbar range of motion. Moreover, Osborn himself admitted that, during the time between the alleged onset of disability and surgery, he performed a couple of contract jobs for friends and companies performing date entry or working on equipment—work he previously had done. While it is true that Abdulla’s opinion as a treating physician is ordinarily entitled to considerable weight, see Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997), here Abdulla’s opinion is unsupported by any evidence demonstrating the severity of Osborn’s limitations or capacity for work. In short, Abdulla’s opinion that Osborn was 100% medically disabled was a conclusory opinion and unsupported by objective medical evidence, and, therefore, the ALJ was permitted 15 to discount it. Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 583 (11th Cir. 1991). Thus, while there is no dispute that Osborn’s back problems constituted an impairment, substantial evidence preponderates in favor of the ALJ’s determination that Osborn could perform past relevant work, and, therefore, was not disabled within the meaning of the SSA before his surgery because Osborn failed to offer objective evidence of his inability to work. See McCruter v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 1544, 1547 (11th Cir. 1986) (“the ‘severity’ of a medically ascertained disability must be measured in terms of its effect upon ability to work, and not simply in terms of deviation from purely medical standards of bodily perfection or normality”); see also Higgs v. Bowen, 880 F.2d 860, 863 (6th Cir. 1986) (persuasively noting that a diagnosis of a condition says nothing about the condition’s severity).