Court Opinion

ID: 9379670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 00:00:24.155609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:29.317300
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30384        Document: 00516678265             Page: 1       Date Filed: 03/15/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 22-30384                                    FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                             March 15, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Mark Reddin,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social
   Security,

                                                                   Defendant—Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:20-CV-908

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Plaintiff-Appellant Mark Reddin brought this action to obtain judicial
   review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision that Reddin is not
   entitled to disability insurance benefits or supplemental social security
   income. On appeal, Reddin contends that the district court, in affirming the
   Commissioner’s decision, (1) erred by finding that Reddin did not meet the

         *
             This decision is not designated for publication. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30384      Document: 00516678265          Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/15/2023

                                    No. 22-30384

   listing of medical impairments under 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404; and (2) erred by
   relying on consultative examination findings rather than treating physician
   records. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Commissioner’s final
   administrative decision.
                         I. Factual and Procedural Background
          Before considering the merits of Reddin’s claims, we review the
   factual and procedural history of this case. On August 10, 2018, Reddin filed
   applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
   income, alleging a disability onset date of June 21, 2018. In his applications,
   Reddin alleged that he suffers from depression and post-traumatic stress
   disorder (“PTSD”) due to his military service, which has allegedly made it
   difficult to hold gainful employment.
          After initially denying Reddin’s applications, the ALJ held an
   administrative hearing on October 9, 2019, at which Reddin, his attorney, and
   a vocational expert (VE) appeared. At the time of the hearing, Reddin was
   thirty-seven years old, possessed at least a high school education, and had
   previously worked as a short order cook and an electrician. Reddin testified
   that he found it difficult to work because he was often uncomfortable around
   other people and because his mind frequently wandered. Reddin further
   testified that he tends to keep to himself out of concern for possibly hurting
   someone or getting triggered. Reddin admitted that he previously struggled
   with addictions to alcohol and various drugs and had been treated at different
   Veterans’ Affairs (“VA”) hospitals for suicidal ideation. Reddin testified
   that after one of these visits, he was diagnosed with severe major depressive
   disorder with psychotic features. Reddin asserted that he can handle all
   activities associated with living independently, however.
          On October 29, 2019, the ALJ issued a decision that concluded that
   Reddin was not disabled. The ALJ held that although Reddin “has severe

                                           2
Case: 22-30384           Document: 00516678265              Page: 3      Date Filed: 03/15/2023

                                             No. 22-30384

   impairments, they are not as limiting as he has alleged,” and he is therefore
   able to hold gainful employment. Reddin requested a review of the ALJ’s
   opinion by the Appeals Council, but the Appeals Council denied this request
   on May 22, 2020. Therefore, the ALJ’s October 29, 2019 decision is the
   Commissioner’s final administrative decision for the purposes of judicial
   review. Soon after, Reddin brought this action under § 205(g) of the Social
   Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), in the U.S. District Court for the Western
   District of Louisiana. The magistrate judge issued a Report and
   Recommendation advising dismissal on May 4, 2022, which the district court
   judge adopted. Reddin timely appealed.
                                          II. Law and Analysis
           We review the district court’s decision de novo, and our review of the
   Commissioner’s decision is limited to “(1) whether the decision is supported
   by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, and (2) whether the
   Commissioner applied the proper legal standard.” 1 Substantial evidence is
   “more than a mere scintilla and less than a preponderance,” 2 and “such
   relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
   a conclusion.” 3 In applying this standard, we may not “re-weigh the
   evidence, try the questions de novo, or substitute our judgment for the
   Commissioner’s, even if we believe the evidence weighs against the
   Commissioner’s decision.” 4

           1
               Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 461 (5th Cir. 2005).
           2
               Id. (quoting Masterson v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 267, 272 (5th Cir. 2002)).
           3
          Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v.
   NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).
           4
               Masterson, 309 F.3d at 272.

                                                  3
Case: 22-30384          Document: 00516678265             Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/15/2023

                                           No. 22-30384

          A claimant is “disabled” under the Social Security Act if he is 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.” 5 A claimant has the burden of proving that he
   suffered from a disability during the relevant time period. 6 The
   Commissioner employs a five-step process to determine if a claimant was
   disabled during the relevant time period: (1) whether the claimant performed
   substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant had a severe
   impairment; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals an impairment
   listed in the relevant regulations; (4) whether the impairment prevented the
   claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5) whether the impairment
   prevented the claimant from performing any other substantial gainful
   activity. 7 If at any step the Commissioner determines that the claimant was
   not disabled, the inquiry ends. 8
          At step one of the disability inquiry, the ALJ determined that Reddin
   had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date of
   June 21, 2018. Under step two, the ALJ found that Reddin suffered from the
   severe impairments of personality disorder, major depressive disorder,
   polysubstance abuse, and carpal tunnel syndrome. Under step three,
   however, the ALJ concluded that Reddin did not have an impairment or
   combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
   the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The ALJ

          5
              42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
          6
              Perez, 415 F.3d at 461.
          7
              20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).
          8
              Morgan v. Colvin, 803 F.3d 773, 776 (5th Cir. 2015).

                                                 4
Case: 22-30384         Document: 00516678265             Page: 5   Date Filed: 03/15/2023

                                          No. 22-30384

   found that Reddin retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to
   perform a full range of work at all exertional levels, with two exceptions:
   Reddin was limited to jobs that require only occasional interaction with the
   public and to jobs in which the ability to feel texture is unnecessary.
          With regard to step four, the ALJ determined that Reddin’s
   impairments prevented him from performing his past positions as a cook and
   electrician. In applying step five, the ALJ looked to the Medical-Vocational
   Guidelines, which is a framework that directs a finding of “disabled” or “not
   disabled” depending on the claimant’s vocational profile. 9 The ALJ
   considered testimony from the vocational expert, who found that Reddin was
   able to perform the occupations of “Cleaner, Housekeeping,” “Marker,”
   and “Linen Room Attendant.” The ALJ also took into account Reddin's age,
   level of education, past work experience, and RFC. The ALJ ultimately
   concluded that Reddin’s impairments do not prevent him from performing
   “jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy.”
          Reddin disputes the ALJ’s (and thus the Commissioner’s) findings
   regarding steps three and five. Reddin contends that the ALJ erred in finding
   that Reddin’s characteristics do not satisfy the listing in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404,
   Subpart P, Appendix 1, because he was “factually found by the ALJ to have
   a severe mental illness.” Reddin asserts that this finding “carries with it the
   implication” that Reddin “meet[s] or equal[s] a listing under 12.04” of
   Appendix 1. Reddin claims that the ALJ ignored the discharge summaries
   from time spent at the V.A. Medical Centers in Louisiana and Colorado in

          9
              20 C.F.R. § Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App’x 2.

                                                5
Case: 22-30384                Document: 00516678265              Page: 6   Date Filed: 03/15/2023

                                             No. 22-30384

   2018. Citing the unpublished case Hernandez v. Berryhill, 10 Reddin asserts
   that the ALJ cannot rule a certain way on one step and then the other way on
   another step.
            We are unpersuaded by Reddin’s arguments. First, it appears that
   Reddin has conflated steps two and three of the relevant inquiry. Step two of
   the inquiry analyzes whether a claimant has a severe impairment, while step
   three determines whether that impairment meets or equals one of the listed
   impairments in in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 11 Hernandez
   does not stand for the notion that the finding of a “severe” impairment
   means that the impairment satisfies step three. 12 Instead, Hernandez states
   that if an ALJ finds that an impairment is severe, the ALJ should provide
   “some explanation” as to “why such a severe impairment would not have
   had any limitation on plaintiff’s ability” to work. 13 We have previously held
   that “the suffering of some impairment does not establish disability; a
   claimant is disabled only if she is ‘incapable of engaging in any substantial
   gainful activity.’” 14 To satisfy step three, a claimant must meet all of the
   specified medical criteria in the C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1
   listing. 15

            10
             No. 3:16-CV-2561-C (BF), 2017 WL 3447862, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June 20, 2017),
   report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:16-CV-2561-C (BF), 2017 WL 3425723 (N.D.
   Tex. Aug. 9, 2017).
            11
            Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 461 (5th Cir. 2005); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4),
   416.920(a)(4).
            12
                 2017 WL 3447862, at *5; see also Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 293 (5th Cir.
   1992).
            13
                 Id. at *5.
            14
                 Id. (quoting Milam v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 1284, 1286 (5th Cir. 1986)).
            15
                 Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990).

                                                    6
Case: 22-30384      Document: 00516678265          Page: 7    Date Filed: 03/15/2023

                                    No. 22-30384

          Second, the ALJ (and thus the Commissioner’s) findings regarding
   Reddin’s disability status are supported by substantial evidence. It is clear
   from the final administrative opinion that the ALJ considered Reddin’s
   inpatient treatments at the VA Medical Centers in July and August 2018. The
   ALJ also considered Reddin’s counseling sessions with a social worker after
   those visits. However, the ALJ pointed out that Reddin’s severe impairments
   were not as limiting as alleged, especially because they improved when
   Reddin followed the treatment plans from his medical providers. As the
   district court pointed out, the ALJ concluded that Reddin was able to account
   for his severe impairments within his RFC.
                                  III. Conclusion
          The Commissioner applied the correct legal standard in evaluating
   Reddin’s claim for disability benefits, and the final administrative decision is
   supported by substantial evidence. We therefore AFFIRM.

                                          7