Court Opinion

ID: 9351797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-03 19:00:44.720064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:03:01.740674
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10966    Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 01/03/2023    Page: 1 of 16

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-10966
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        CHARLES WAYNE COLE,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellant,
        versus
        COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

                                                     Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Alabama
                      D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-01695-JHE
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10966        Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 01/03/2023       Page: 2 of 16

        2                        Opinion of the Court                    22-10966

        Before WILSON, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Charles Wayne Cole appeals the district court’s order
        affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s (“Commissioner”)
        denial of supplemental security income (“SSI”). On appeal, Cole
        argues that we should reverse the denial of his claim for SSI because
        the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erroneously found the
        medical opinions of two experts unpersuasive. After review, we
        affirm.
                                       I.     Background
              a. Cole’s medical history
               The following medical history was reviewed by the ALJ,
        who denied Cole’s SSI claim, and by the magistrate judge, who
        affirmed the ALJ’s decision.1 In early 2019, Cole applied for SSI,
        asserting that his disability began on January 1, 2016. In his
        disability report, Cole stated that his ability to work was limited
        due to metal rods in his left leg, mental problems, and constant,
        severe pain. He explained that he was employed as a carpenter
        from 1991 to 2004 and stopped working on July 1, 2004, because of
        his medical conditions.

        1 Both parties consented to a magistrate judge conducting proceedings in the
        case below, including the entry of final judgment.
USCA11 Case: 22-10966      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 01/03/2023     Page: 3 of 16

        22-10966               Opinion of the Court                         3

               In December 2018, Cole was discharged from a mental
        health center with a diagnosis of alcohol-induced depression. He
        visited the mental health center again several days later, reporting
        that he “self-medicated for pain with alcohol” and that “[h]e [was]
        interested in seeking help in managing pain.” A week later, he
        returned to the center and “reported that he [was] feeling well”
        except for slight tightness in his chest, which began after he started
        his medication. He reported that he was getting along well with
        others and expressed no other concerns.
               In April 2019, consulting psychologist Robert A. Storjohann,
        Ph.D., examined Cole. In his report, Dr. Storjohann observed that
        Cole was appropriately dressed and groomed and was “[o]riented
        to person, place, situation, and time.” Dr. Storjohann’s report also
        noted that Cole “appeared to be experiencing considerable pain
        and discomfort throughout the exam” and Cole’s demeanor “was
        that of being quite dysphoric and ill-at-ease.” During the
        examination, Cole performed simple math calculations and various
        cognitive exercises related to concentration and attention without
        error. For example, Cole successfully counted backwards from 20
        to 1; spelled “world” forwards and backwards; subtracted serial
        sevens from 100; recalled two of three objects after a five-minute
        delay; recalled his son’s birthday; described his activities from the
        previous day without difficulty; and identified the United States
        president, two states that bordered Alabama, the capital of
        Alabama, and the number of months in a year. As to abstractions,
USCA11 Case: 22-10966      Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 01/03/2023     Page: 4 of 16

        4                      Opinion of the Court                22-10966

        Cole identified similarities amongst objects (e.g., that an orange
        and banana were both fruits) and the lessons of proverbs.
               Dr. Storjohann found that Cole’s thoughts and speech were
        logical, coherent, and goal-directed and without loose associations
        or confusion. As to Cole’s thought content, Dr. Storjohann
        observed no hallucinations or delusions. Nonetheless, Dr.
        Storjohann opined that Cole had “significant mental health
        difficulties” and that Cole was “markedly impaired” in his ability to
        maintain effective social interactions in various settings and
        “moderately to markedly impaired” in his “ability to understand,
        carry out, and remember simple work-related instructions.”
               The next month, James P. Temple, M.D., examined Cole.
        Cole’s chief complaint to Dr. Temple was “[r]ight lower extremity
        pain” and back pain from a motorcycle accident that occurred in
        2011. Dr. Temple observed that Cole walked with a crutch, “had
        a marked limp,” and was “unable to bend, squat, and stoop because
        of pain and decreased range of motion of his hips and back.” In the
        opinion section of his report, Dr. Temple wrote: “At the present
        time, this patient is unemployable. He is in dire need of a family
        physician for investigative purposes.”
              One month later, Amy Cooper, Ph.D., performed Cole’s
        mental residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment. She found
        that Cole could “understand and remember simple instructions
        and work procedures,” “carry out simple tasks,” and “tolerate
        ordinary work pressures.” She also found that he would benefit
        from being in an environment with familiar coworkers, a flexible
USCA11 Case: 22-10966      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 01/03/2023      Page: 5 of 16

        22-10966                Opinion of the Court                         5

        schedule, and regularly scheduled rest breaks “but [would] still be
        able to maintain a work pace consistent for the mental demands of
        competitive level work.” As part of her assessment, Dr. Cooper
        evaluated Dr. Storjohann’s and Dr. Temple’s medical opinions on
        Cole’s mental health. She concluded that Dr. Storjohann’s opinion
        was “without substantial support” and only “somewhat consistent
        with [the] evidence in file” and that Dr. Temple’s opinion was
        “without substantial support” and “not fully consistent with [the]
        evidence in file.”
              Anthony Pitts, M.D., performed Cole’s physical RFC
        assessment. After reviewing the record, Dr. Pitts found that Cole
        could perform a range of light work with postural, manipulative,
        and environmental limitations.
               In the fall of 2019, Cole saw his family doctor, Robert W.
        Bartel, M.D., twice. During both visits, Cole denied having
        depression or anxiety. On examination during both visits, Dr.
        Bartel observed that Cole was alert, awake, and oriented; that his
        memory was intact; and that his judgment, mood, and affect were
        normal. On the first visit, Dr. Bartel reported that Cole had normal
        motor tone and coordination, normal range of motion, no motor
        or sensory deficits, and an unsteady gait but that he should “have
        minimal difficulty . . . using a walking stick [for his] leg weakness.”
        On the second visit, Dr. Bartel observed that Cole used a walking
        stick and had diminished range of motion. As to Cole’s
        neurological examination, Dr. Bartel noted “[n]o [c]hanges” since
        Cole’s last visit.
USCA11 Case: 22-10966       Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 01/03/2023      Page: 6 of 16

        6                       Opinion of the Court                  22-10966

              In March 2020, Cole visited Dr. Bartel again. Dr. Bartel
        examined Cole and described Cole as having normal judgment,
        normal mood and affect, and an intact memory. Dr. Bartel also
        observed that Cole was “pleasant” and “cooperative” and noted no
        motor or sensory deficits.
              In January 2020, Cole visited the emergency room for arm,
        back, and leg pain. Cole explained that he had missed an
        appointment with his primary care physician and had not taken his
        pain medicine for three weeks.
               Less than a week later, Cole visited the emergency room
        again, this time for anxiety and shaking. He explained that his
        physician had given him medication but that he had been out of
        the medication for over six weeks.
              b. The ALJ hearing and decision
                In April 2020, after the Commissioner denied Cole’s claim
        for SSI, an ALJ held a hearing on Cole’s claim. At the hearing, Cole
        testified, consistent with his application for SSI benefits, that he had
        been a carpenter from 1991 to 2004 and that his disability “onset
        date” was January 1, 2016. He testified that he could stand or sit at
        a work chair for 5 to 10 minutes before his back started bothering
        him and that he could walk 15 to 20 feet before needing to sit down
        and rest. He also testified that he could lift five to ten pounds on a
        frequent basis but that Dr. Bartel had told him not to do any lifting.
        Cole reported that his pain was unbearable the majority of the time
USCA11 Case: 22-10966         Document: 23-1         Date Filed: 01/03/2023         Page: 7 of 16

        22-10966                   Opinion of the Court                                7

        and that his medications did not help with the pain, despite trying
        different medications prescribed by Dr. Bartel.
               A vocational expert (“VE”) also testified at the hearing.
        When asked to assume a hypothetical about an individual with the
        same age, education, prior work experience, and physical and
        mental limitations as Cole, the VE testified that the hypothetical
        individual could not return to his past work as a carpenter but
        could perform certain sedentary jobs—such as an unskilled,
        sedentary inspector, assembly worker, or hand packager.
              After employing the Commissioner’s five-step sequential
        evaluation for determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ
        concluded that Cole was “not disabled” under the Social Security
        Act and denied Cole’s claim for SSI. 2
              At step one, the ALJ found that Cole “ha[d] not engaged in
        substantial gainful activity at any time pertinent to this decision.”

        2 The Social Security regulations outline a five-step process that the ALJ uses
        to determine whether a claimant is disabled. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
        631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). The five steps are: (1) whether the
        claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether he “has a severe
        impairment or combination of impairments”; (3) “whether th[at] impairment
        [or combination of impairments] meets or equals the severity of the specified
        impairments” in the regulations; (4) “whether the claimant can perform any
        of his . . . past relevant work” in light of his RFC; and (5) “whether there are
        significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can
        perform given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.” Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-10966     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 01/03/2023    Page: 8 of 16

        8                     Opinion of the Court               22-10966

               At step two, the ALJ identified Cole’s previously fractured
        left leg, depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder as severe
        impairments that significantly limited Cole’s ability to perform
        basic work activities.
              At step three, the ALJ found that despite Cole’s severe
        impairments, Cole did not have an impairment or combination of
        impairments that met one of the impairments listed in applicable
        regulations.
              At step four, after considering the record and medical
        evidence, the ALJ found that Cole had the RFC to perform
              sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR [§] 416.967(a)
              except he could lift and carry twenty pounds
              occasionally and ten pounds frequently; stand and
              walk three hours per eight-hour day; sit six hours per
              eight-hour day; frequently push and pull with the
              bilateral upper and lower extremities; occasionally
              climb ramps and stairs; never climb ladders, ropes,
              and scaffolds; frequently balance and stoop;
              occasionally kneel, crouch, and crawl; frequently
              reach overhead, handle, and finger bilaterally; must
              avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold or heat,
              vibration including power tools and air compression
              tools; limit wet, slippery, icy surfaces and uneven
              terrain; avoid even moderate exposure to hazards
              including unprotected heights; can understand and
              remember simple instructions and work procedures;
USCA11 Case: 22-10966     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 01/03/2023    Page: 9 of 16

        22-10966              Opinion of the Court                       9

              should be able to concentrate and attend to simple
              tasks for two hours and will need all customary rests
              and breaks; could tolerate ordinary work pressures
              but should avoid excessive workloads, quick decision
              making, rapid changes, and multiple demands; is
              likely to do best working with a small number of
              familiar co-workers; and changes in the work
              environment or expectations should be occasional
              and presented gradually to give time for adjustment.
              Travel should be restricted to local and familiar
              environments.
        Ultimately, the ALJ found that Cole was unable to perform his past,
        relevant work as a carpenter because its workplace demands
        exceeded his RFC.
               The ALJ also found that Dr. Storjohann’s examination
        reports contained “generally benign findings that [were] not
        supportive of the marked limitations noted in his opinion.” After
        considering all the medical evidence in the record, the ALJ
        concluded that Dr. Storjohann’s opinion was unpersuasive and
        “not consistent with the overall medical evidence which show[ed
        that Cole] had normal mood and affect during most of his mental
        status examinations.”
               Likewise, the ALJ did not find Dr. Temple’s opinion
        persuasive because it “was not supported with specific examination
        findings, did not include any specific vocational limitations, and
        [was] conclusory.” The ALJ also concluded that statements that a
USCA11 Case: 22-10966     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 01/03/2023     Page: 10 of 16

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 22-10966

        claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work”—like Dr. Temple’s
        opinion that Cole was “unemployable”—were not medical
        opinions. Rather, they were administrative findings reserved to the
        Commissioner.
                Finally, at step five, the ALJ concluded that considering
        Cole’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, there were
        significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that Cole
        could perform. Specifically, the ALJ found that Cole could perform
        sedentary, unskilled work as an inspector, an assembly line worker,
        or a hand packager.
               Cole appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Appeals Council, but
        his request for review was denied.
              c. The magistrate judge’s order
               Cole then filed a complaint in district court, arguing that the
        ALJ’s determination that Cole was not disabled was not based on
        substantial evidence and that the ALJ did not use the proper legal
        standards.
               The magistrate judge affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.
        He noted that “Cole raise[d] a single objection to the ALJ’s
        decision: the ALJ inappropriately rejected the opinions of
        consultative psychological examiner Dr. Robert A. Storjohann and
        consultative medical examiner Dr. James Temple.” The magistrate
        judge concluded that the ALJ did not err because substantial
        evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that the doctors’ opinions
        were unpersuasive.
USCA11 Case: 22-10966     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 01/03/2023    Page: 11 of 16

        22-10966               Opinion of the Court                       11

              Cole timely appealed to this Court.
                               II.    Standards of Review
               “When, as in this case, the ALJ denies benefits and the
        [Appeals Council] denies review, we review the ALJ’s decision as
        the Commissioner’s final decision.” Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d
        1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). “[W]e review de novo the legal
        principles upon which the Commissioner’s decision is based,” and
        “we review the resulting decision only to determine whether it is
        supported by substantial evidence.” Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d
        1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005).
               In the Social Security context, the threshold for substantial
        evidence is “not high.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154
        (2019). It is “more than a mere scintilla” and “means only . . . such
        relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
        to support a conclusion.” Id. (quotations omitted). “Substantial
        evidence is less than a preponderance, and thus we must affirm an
        ALJ’s decision even in cases where a greater portion of the record
        seems to weigh against it.” Simon v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 7
        F.4th 1094, 1103 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). “We may
        not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our
        judgment for that of the [Commissioner].” Winschel v. Comm’r
        of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (alteration in
        original) (quotation omitted).
USCA11 Case: 22-10966        Document: 23-1        Date Filed: 01/03/2023        Page: 12 of 16

        12                        Opinion of the Court                      22-10966

                                         III.   Discussion
               On appeal, Cole argues that we should reverse the ALJ’s
        denial of SSI because the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinions of Dr.
        Storjohann and Dr. Temple. 3 We disagree and affirm because
        there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion that
        Dr. Storjohann’s and Dr. Temple’s opinions were unpersuasive.
                To qualify for SSI, a claimant must be unable “to engage in
        any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
        determinable physical or mental impairment which can be
        expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected
        to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42
        U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Social Security regulations outline a
        five-step process that the ALJ must use to determine whether a
        claimant is disabled. 4 Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178. The regulations

        3 To the extent Cole challenges any other aspects of the ALJ’s decision, he has
        forfeited those arguments. An appellant’s brief must address his contentions
        and the reasons for them with citations to the authorities and parts of the
        record on which he relies. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). An appellant forfeits
        an issue when he “raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting
        arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d
        678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). Cole’s brief, which is replete with block quotes and
        cursory mentions of various court decisions, falls into this snare. See Harner
        v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 38 F.4th 892, 898–99 (11th Cir. 2022).
        4 As a reminder, the five steps are: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in
        substantial gainful activity; (2) whether he “has a severe impairment or
        combination of impairments”; (3) “whether th[at] impairment [or
        combination of impairments] meets or equals the severity of the specified
        impairments” in the regulations; (4) “whether the claimant can perform any
USCA11 Case: 22-10966        Document: 23-1         Date Filed: 01/03/2023        Page: 13 of 16

        22-10966                   Opinion of the Court                              13

        also explain what evidence is permitted for admission before an
        ALJ and how an ALJ should consider certain evidence.
               As relevant to this case, the regulations provide that any
        statement about whether a claimant is disabled, able to work, or
        able to perform regular or continuing work is a statement on an
        issue reserved to the Commissioner and is considered “inherently
        neither valuable nor persuasive.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920b(c)(3)(i).
        With respect to medical opinions, for claims filed on or after March
        27, 2017, the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary
        weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or
        prior administrative finding(s), including those from [the
        claimant’s] medical sources.” 5 Id. § 416.920c(a). Instead, the ALJ
        must “articulate in [his or her] determination or decision how
        persuasive [he or she] find[s] all of the medical opinions,” taking
        into account five factors: (1) “supportability,” (2) “consistency,” (3)
        the “relationship with the claimant,” (4) “specialization,” and (5)
        “other factors that tend to support or contradict” the opinion. Id.
        § 416.920c(c). The regulations explain that supportability and

        of his . . . past relevant work” in light of his RFC; and (5) “whether there are
        significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can
        perform given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.”
        Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178.
        5 The regulations relating to the evaluation of medical evidence were revised
        in 2017. Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82
        Fed. Reg. 5844 (Jan. 18, 2017) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 404 & 416)
        (technical errors corrected by 82 Fed. Reg. 15,132 (Mar. 27, 2017)). Because
        Cole filed his claim in 2019, these revised regulations apply to his claim.
USCA11 Case: 22-10966        Document: 23-1         Date Filed: 01/03/2023        Page: 14 of 16

        14                         Opinion of the Court                      22-10966

        consistency are the two most important factors.                             Id.
        § 416.920c(b)(2).
              Cole argues that the ALJ erred by refusing to accept Dr.
        Storjohann’s and Dr. Temple’s opinions. 6            We disagree.
        Substantial evidence supports the finding that Dr. Storjohann’s and
        Dr. Temple’s opinions are unpersuasive. 7 First, the ALJ did not err

        6 Cole also asks this Court (1) to “issue a published decision in this case
        reversing the denial of benefits based on [McClurkin v. Soc. Sec. Admin.,
        Comm’r, 625 F. App’x 960 (11th Cir. 2015)] and affirming the holding of
        [McClurkin] as precedent” and (2) to “embrace” Wilder v. Chater, 64 F.3d.
        335, 337–38 (7th Cir. 1995).
                As to McClurkin, first, Cole has not explained why McClurkin, an
        unpublished case, would compel reversal of the ALJ’s decision in this case.
        Second, as a 2015 case, McClurkin applied the pre-2017 version of the
        regulations when assessing how an ALJ should evaluate medical opinions and
        its analysis is thus inapposite here. See McClurkin, 625 F. App’x at 962–63.
        And third, even if McClurkin were otherwise applicable, it is factually
        distinguishable because—unlike this case—the ALJ failed to explain his
        grounds for discounting a medical opinion. See id.
                Similarly, Wilder—an out-of-circuit, 1995 decision that applies
        outdated Social Security regulations and is factually distinguishable—is
        inapplicable. See 64 F.3d at 337–38.
        7 Cole contends that the ALJ should have requested additional information if
        the ALJ was not satisfied with the reports of Dr. Storjohann and Dr. Temple.
        But the regulations do not require an ALJ to reach out to doctors for additional
        information in these circumstances, and it was not error for the ALJ not to do
        so. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920b(b)(2) (explaining that it is the ALJ’s prerogative
        to determine the “best way to resolve [an] inconsistency or insufficiency” in
        the evidence).
USCA11 Case: 22-10966     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 01/03/2023     Page: 15 of 16

        22-10966               Opinion of the Court                        15

        by finding that Dr. Storjohann’s examination reports contained
        “generally benign findings that are not supportive of the marked
        limitations noted in his opinion.” Dr. Storjohann’s reports
        documented that Cole was oriented as to person, place, time, and
        situation and could perform various cognitive exercises related to
        concentration, attention, and memory. For example, Cole
        successfully performed simple mathematical calculations,
        described activities from the previous day without difficulty, and
        recalled his son’s birthday and the capital of Alabama, among other
        facts—demonstrating intact recent and remote memory. In the
        realm of abstractions, he successfully identified similarities and the
        lessons of proverbs. And Dr. Storjohann found that Cole’s
        thoughts and speech were logical, coherent, and goal-directed and
        without loose associations or confusion.
               Despite these findings, Dr. Storjohann concluded that Cole
        had “significant mental health difficulties” and that Cole was
        “markedly impaired” in his ability to maintain effective social
        interactions in various settings and “moderately to markedly
        impaired” in his “ability to understand, carry out, and remember
        simple work-related instructions.” Under these facts, the ALJ did
        not err in finding Dr. Storjohann’s opinion unpersuasive and
        inconsistent with Dr. Storjohann’s own benign findings and the
        other medical evidence in the record—such as the evidence from
        Dr. Bartel and Dr. Cooper, who observed Cole’s normal mood and
        affect and found that he was able to “understand and remember
USCA11 Case: 22-10966     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 01/03/2023    Page: 16 of 16

        16                     Opinion of the Court                22-10966

        simple instructions and work procedures” and “carry out simple
        tasks.”
                Second, the ALJ did not err in finding that Dr. Temple’s
        opinion that Cole was “unemployable” was an administrative
        finding reserved to the Commissioner—not a medical opinion.
        The ALJ was correct. The Social Security regulations provide that
        any statement about whether a claimant is disabled or able to work
        is a statement on an issue reserved to the Commissioner and is
        “inherently neither valuable nor persuasive” evidence. 20 C.F.R.
        § 416.920b(c)(3)(i). Moreover, where Dr. Temple did not provide
        any explanation for his opinion, the ALJ did not err in finding that
        Dr. Temple’s opinion “was not supported with specific
        examination findings, did not include any specific vocational
        limitations, and [was] conclusory.”
                                    IV.    Conclusion
               Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion
        that Dr. Storjohann’s and Dr. Temple’s opinions were
        unpersuasive, the ALJ did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the
        denial of Cole’s claim.
              AFFIRMED.