Court Opinion

ID: 9393268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 19:00:45.883106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:52.149016
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11026    Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 05/09/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11026
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       CHANDA ALANE HARDIN,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, COMMISSIONER,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Alabama
                    D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-00879-CLM
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11026         Document: 30-1         Date Filed: 05/09/2023         Page: 2 of 6

       2                          Opinion of the Court                       22-11026

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Chanda Hardin appeals the district court’s order affirming
       the Commissioner’s denial of her claim for a period of disability,
       disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income.
       She contends the Appeals Council (AC) erred in holding that her
       medical submissions, which included evidence of a herniated disc,
       did not show a reasonable probability of changing the outcome of
       the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision. She also asserts the
       ALJ’s decision was not based on substantial evidence when it relied
       on the Vocational Expert’s (VE) testimony regarding a question
       that was not based on a correct or full statement of Hardin’s limi-
       tations and impairments. After review, 1 we affirm the district
       court.

       1 We review de novo the legal principles upon which the Commissioner’s de-
       cision is based, and the Commissioner’s factual findings are conclusive if sup-
       ported by substantial evidence. Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253,
       1260 (11th Cir. 2007). The Commissioner’s decision will not be disturbed if,
       in light of the record as a whole, it appears to be supported by substantial evi-
       dence, which is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reason-
       able person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion. Crawford v.
       Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004). When a claimant
       properly presents new evidence to the AC, we consider whether that new ev-
       idence renders the denial of benefits erroneous. Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1262.
USCA11 Case: 22-11026      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 05/09/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       22-11026               Opinion of the Court                         3

                                I. AC DECISION
               Generally, claimants are permitted to present new evidence
       at each stage of the administrative process, including before the
       AC. Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253, 1261 (11th Cir.
       2007). The AC will review a case if it “receives additional evidence
       that is new, material, and relates to the period on or before the date
       of the hearing decision, and there is a reasonable probability that
       the additional evidence would change the outcome of the deci-
       sion.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470(a)(5). If a claimant presents evidence
       after the ALJ’s decision, the AC must consider it if it is new, mate-
       rial, and chronologically relevant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(a)(5), (b);
       Pupo v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 17 F.4th 1054, 1063 (11th Cir.
       2021). Evidence is material if it creates a reasonable probability of
       changing the ALJ’s decision. Hyde v. Bowen, 823 F.2d 456,
       459 (11th Cir. 1987).
              However, we have held the AC, in denying a request for re-
       view, is not required to “give a detailed rationale for why each
       piece of new evidence submitted to it does not change the ALJ’s
       decision.” Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780, 784
       (11th Cir. 2014). In Mitchell, we concluded the AC adequately eval-
       uated new evidence submitted where it accepted the evidence but
       denied review because the additional evidence failed to establish
       error in the ALJ’s decision. Id.
             The record does not support Hardin’s claim the AC failed to
       adequately consider her new evidence. The AC explicitly noted
       each of the medial records Hardin submitted, including the MRI
USCA11 Case: 22-11026     Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 05/09/2023   Page: 4 of 6

       4                     Opinion of the Court                22-11026

       report from June 29, 2017, that showed right-sided disc extru-
       sion/herniation at L5-S1, and it stated it found the new evidence
       did not show a reasonable probability of a different result. Thus,
       the AC considered the evidence, specifically incorporating descrip-
       tions of the medical records into the record, and concluded the new
       evidence was insufficient to alter the ALJ’s decision. See id. Be-
       cause the AC is not required to give a detailed rationale for why
       each piece of new evidence submitted to it does not change the
       ALJ’s decision, its consideration of Hardin’s newly submitted evi-
       dence was not erroneous. See id.
              Likewise, the AC did not err in determining the MRI evi-
       dence showing a right-sided disc extrusion/herniation at L5-S1
       would not affect the outcome of the ALJ’s decision. Hardin con-
       tends the MRI is material because the ALJ found her back pain was
       not substantiated by medical evidence and this finding was contra-
       dicted by the MRI evidence showing the back pain was caused by
       a herniated disc. This argument mischaracterizes the ALJ’s hearing
       decision because the ALJ did not find Hardin’s back pain was not
       caused by a medically determinable impairment. Instead, the ALJ
       found Hardin’s lumbar degenerative disc disease was a severe im-
       pairment. Further, the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) as-
       sessment accounted for Hardin’s back impairments, which is con-
       sistent with the MRI, and the MRI does not show any different or
       more severe disability as to render a reasonable probability it
       would change the administrative result. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b);
USCA11 Case: 22-11026      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 05/09/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       22-11026               Opinion of the Court                         5

       Pupo, 17 F.4th at 1063. Accordingly, the AC did not err in evaluat-
       ing Hardin’s newly submitted evidence.
                            II. ALJ HYPOTHETICAL
              At the fifth step of the disability inquiry, the ALJ determines
       whether the claimant can perform other work in light of the claim-
       ant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience. Wilson v. Barn-
       hart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1227 (11th Cir. 2002). For a VE’s testimony to
       constitute substantial evidence, the ALJ must pose a hypothetical
       question that comprises all of the claimant’s impairments. Win-
       schel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2011).
       The hypothetical need only include the claimant’s impairments,
       not each and every symptom of the claimant. Ingram, 496 F.3d at
       1270.
              While Hardin alleges the ALJ erred in relying on the VE’s
       testimony because the hypothetical question did not accurately
       state her pain level or her RFC, she does not state what impair-
       ments or limitations the ALJ failed to include in the hypothetical
       question. While she contends the ALJ erred in relying on the VE’s
       testimony regarding a hypothetical individual who could work at a
       “light exertion level,” the ALJ did not rely on the VE’s answer to
       this hypothetical question, but instead the ALJ relied on the VE’s
       answer to his question limiting the hypothetical individual to a
       range of “sedentary” work.
             Hardin’s argument fails because the ALJ’s hypothetical
       needed only include Hardin’s impairments, which it did when the
USCA11 Case: 22-11026     Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 05/09/2023   Page: 6 of 6

       6                     Opinion of the Court                22-11026

       ALJ asked the VE about a hypothetical individual limited to a range
       of sedentary work. See Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1270. The ALJ was not
       required to include each and every symptom of Hardin’s in the hy-
       pothetical question. See id. Accordingly, we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.