Opinion ID: 802371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Moving About and Manipulating Objects

Text: The second ALJ’s relevant analysis on the motor skills domain states: “Despite the consultative examiner’s opinion that claimant had a marked limitation in this area there was no evidence that claimant had problems with this area. He was able to function in school and play age appropriately.” The second ALJ’s finding is not straightforward but we are constrained to conclude, affirming the district court’s and magistrate judge’s rulings, that it is supported by substantial evidence. Although Dr. Adams had opined that Z.N.F. had a marked limitation in this domain,4 Dr. Adams also observed that Z.N.F. had “no obvious problems with motor coordination” during his evaluation. Dr. Adams, a psychologist, also explained that Z.N.F.’s poor performance on tasks requiring manipulation of objects “may be partly associated with impulsivity.” At the hearing, when asked if he had “any trouble using either hand or arm to reach, 4 Dr. Adams determined that Z.N.F. “[h]as a reported history of delayed motor skills. Did not perform well on tasks requiring manipulation of objects, but this weakness may be partly associated with impulsivity.” 7 Case: 11-30766 Document: 00511888001 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/15/2012 No. 11-30766 grip, or manipulate things,” Z.N.F.’s grandmother responded that he did not other than his hand and leg being stiff when wakes up in the morning.5 When he was almost four years old, Z.N.F. had trouble with fine motor skills and prewriting but could pedal, catch, throw, kick a ball, hop, gallop, and hold a pencil and paint brush.6 His records also show progress in his gross and fine motor skills after physical and occupational therapy. Ultimately, the second ALJ, as affirmed by the magistrate judge and district judge, could discredit or disagree with Dr. Adams’ opinion as long as it pointed to evidence that supports the contrary conclusion. Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 455 (5th Cir. 2000); Bradley v. Bowen, 809 F.2d 1054, 1057 (5th Cir. 1987). The second ALJ justified its rejection of Dr. Adams’s opinion by explaining tersely that Z.N.F. “was able to function in school and play age appropriately.” See Loza v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 378, 395 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that an ALJ cannot reject a medical opinion without an explanation); Strickland v. Harris, 615 F.2d 1103, 1110 (5th Cir. 1980) (“An administrative law judge may not arbitrarily reject uncontroverted medical testimony.” (citing Goodley v. Harris, 608 F.2d 234, 236 (5th Cir. 1979)). “A finding of no substantial evidence is appropriate only if no credible evidentiary choices or medical findings support the decision.” Boyd, 239 F.3d at 704 (quoting Harris, 209 F.3d at 417). Our 5 Z.N.F.’s grandmother also testified at the hearing that Z.N.F. lacked coordination in his hands, had weakness on the right side of his body that caused his right leg to give out, lacked strength in the lower part of his legs, and had difficulty running, causing him to fall often. Another witness, Nancy Bailey Sheppard, testified that Z.N.F. had difficulty learning to walk. 6 On the other hand, the administrative record also contained evidence of Z.N.F.’s general delay in motor development reporting: problems with mobility and balance when sitting, standing, and walking and with fine motor skills; an inability to roll into a seated position when almost a year old and episodes of tonic posturing of the arm before sleep attributed to a movement issue rather than seizures; a variety of problems moving about and manipulating objects; and problems with head control, overall motor control, and fine and gross motor skills. 8 Case: 11-30766 Document: 00511888001 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/15/2012 No. 11-30766 caselaw does not permit us to substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner, id., and because the second ALJ’s terse explanation is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the district court. 5. Conclusion Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s conclusion that Z.N.F. does not meet Listing 112.05(D) or its functional equivalent. 9