Court Opinion

ID: 9954537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 16:01:12.884596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:10:40.763613
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11706    Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 03/26/2024   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11706
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       LISA AMBROSE MCGRANAHAN,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cv-00795-WFJ-TGW
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11706      Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 03/26/2024     Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11706

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and LAGOA, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Lisa McGranahan appeals the denial of her application for
       disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
       42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). After McGranahan alleged that she
       was disabled due to major depression disorder, generalized anxiety
       disorder, and social anxiety disorder, the administrative law judge
       found that she was not disabled and denied her application.
       McGranahan challenges that denial and argues that the administra-
       tive law judge failed to evaluate properly the medical opinion evi-
       dence from two of her treating mental-health providers, her sub-
       jective complaints, and her residual functional capacity. We affirm.
              We review the administrative law judge’s application of le-
       gal principles de novo and review the resulting decision “to deter-
       mine whether it is supported by substantial evidence.” Buckwalter
       v. Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 5 F.4th 1315, 1320 (11th Cir. 2021).
       “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant
       evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to sup-
       port a conclusion.” Id. We will not decide the facts anew, make
       credibility determinations, or re-weigh the evidence. Winschel v.
       Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). Even if the
       preponderance of the evidence weighs against the decision, we will
       affirm so long as substantial evidence supports the decision. Buck-
       walter, 5 F.4th at 1320.
USCA11 Case: 23-11706      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 03/26/2024     Page: 3 of 7

       23-11706               Opinion of the Court                          3

               In support of her claim, McGranahan submitted medical
       opinions from psychiatric nurse practitioner Emily Reynolds. In
       February 2018, about two months after McGranahan’s alleged dis-
       ability onset date, Reynolds recorded, during a mental-status exam,
       that McGranahan’s thought process was coherent and logical, her
       level of intellectual functioning was average, and her memory was
       grossly intact. Reynolds recorded that McGranahan stated that she
       was mildly depressed and anxious and that her medication was
       somewhat effective, and Reynolds adjusted her medication.
               Over the next three years, Reynolds completed three psychi-
       atric impairment questionnaires. In February 2019, one week after
       McGranahan reported tolerating her medication well and re-
       quested a medication adjustment, Reynolds opined in a question-
       naire co-signed by psychiatrist Dr. Gregory Onderko that
       McGranahan would experience marked restrictions in daily living
       activities and social functioning and frequent deficiencies of con-
       centration, persistence, or pace resulting in failure to complete
       tasks in a timely manner and her absence from work about once a
       month. In October 2020, despite McGranahan reporting over the
       previous ten months that she was busy over the holidays, helped a
       family member move, gardened, and planned a trip to the beach,
       Reynolds opined in a second questionnaire, co-signed by psychia-
       trist Dr. Linda Leffler, that McGranahan had a moderate restriction
       of daily living activities and extreme difficulties in social function-
       ing but that she could not assess whether McGranahan experienced
       deficiencies of concentration, persistence, or pace. Nevertheless,
       Reynolds opined that these impairments would cause McGranahan
USCA11 Case: 23-11706     Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 03/26/2024    Page: 4 of 7

       4                     Opinion of the Court                 23-11706

       to be absent from work more than twice a month. During that
       month, McGranahan reported that her medications were helpful,
       denied major mood instability, and reported engaging in healthy
       lifestyle behaviors and exercising regularly. In June 2021, after
       McGranahan reported four months earlier that she was comforta-
       ble with her medications, was exercising, and was engaging in var-
       ious projects to stay busy and denied any major mood instability,
       Reynolds opined in a third questionnaire, co-signed by Dr. Leffler,
       that McGranahan had marked restrictions of daily living activities
       and social functioning and would experience frequent deficiencies
       of concentration, persistence, and pace and that these impairments
       would cause her to be absent from work more than twice a month.
       During that month, McGranahan reported that she wanted to con-
       tinue her medications because she felt that she had made significant
       progress while taking them. And in August 2021, McGranahan re-
       ported doing well overall and being more organized and grounded.
              McGranahan also presented medical opinion evidence from
       Dr. Marisol Valencia-Payne who evaluated McGranahan during a
       single telehealth visit in September 2020. Dr. Valencia-Payne
       opined that McGranahan had marked limitations in social interac-
       tion, adaptation, and concentration and persistence, which would
       cause her to be absent from work more than three times a month.
              Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s
       finding that McGranahan was not disabled. The administrative law
       judge considered both providers’ medical opinions but found that
       the opinions were unpersuasive because they were inconsistent
USCA11 Case: 23-11706      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 03/26/2024     Page: 5 of 7

       23-11706               Opinion of the Court                          5

       with other medical evidence and lacked support in the record. See
       20 C.F.R § 404.1520c, 416.920(c) (providing that for claims filed on
       or after March 27, 2017, the administrative law judge must articu-
       late how persuasive he finds each medical opinion, but providing
       that he no longer must assign more weight to a treating source’s
       medical opinion or explain why good cause exists to disregard it).
       The administrative law judge considered and explained that Reyn-
       olds’s opinions that McGranahan experienced severe limitations
       were inconsistent with record evidence that McGranahan func-
       tioned independently, performed a variety of activities like shop-
       ping and driving, did not require hospitalization or intense treat-
       ment, and experienced improvement in her symptoms with regu-
       lar medication, which she requested no changes to in 2021. The
       administrative law judge also considered Dr. Valencia-Payne’s
       opinion, which was based on her one-time video examination of
       McGranahan, and found that this opinion lacked support in the rec-
       ord and appeared to contradict both McGranahan’s reports to
       Reynolds regarding her increased activities during that time and
       Dr. Valencia-Payne’s notes that McGranahan exhibited a coherent
       and goal-directed thought process with intact concentration and at-
       tention. See Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1159 (11th
       Cir. 2004) (finding that substantial evidence supported the “deci-
       sion to discount” a physician’s opinion because it was “inconsistent
       with his own treatment notes, unsupported by the medical evi-
       dence, and appear[ed] to be based primarily on [the claimant’s] sub-
       jective complaints”). And because the administrative law judge
       found the opinions equally unpersuasive, the new regulations did
USCA11 Case: 23-11706     Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 03/26/2024    Page: 6 of 7

       6                      Opinion of the Court                23-11706

       not require him to articulate his consideration of the other factors.
       See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(b)(2)-(3), 416.920c(b)(2)-(3) (“[W]e will
       explain how we considered the supportability and consistency fac-
       tors for a medical source’s medical opinions . . . . We may, but are
       not required to, explain how we considered the [remaining factors]
       when we articulate how we consider medical opinions . . . .”).
               Substantial evidence also supports the administrative law
       judge’s finding that McGranahan’s subjective complaints regarding
       the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms
       were inconsistent with the medical evidence and her testimony.
       The administrative law judge found that despite McGranahan’s al-
       legations that she was severely limited, her conditions “required
       little medical intervention” and “caused no symptoms that pre-
       vented the claimant from performing substantial gainful activity.”
       See Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1226 (11th Cir. 2002). The ad-
       ministrative law judge also found it significant that, with treatment
       and an effective medication regimen, McGranahan was able to in-
       crease her activities and improve her symptoms. The administra-
       tive law judge explained that, despite McGranahan self-reporting
       on a supplemental questionnaire that she was limited in memory,
       completing tasks, concentrating, and getting along with others, he
       observed at the hearing that she “paid good attention, was well fo-
       cused, understood the questions, and gave relevant and detailed
       answers.” See id.
             Substantial evidence supports the finding that McGranahan
       had the residual functional capacity to perform work with certain
USCA11 Case: 23-11706      Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 03/26/2024     Page: 7 of 7

       23-11706               Opinion of the Court                         7

       non-exertional limitations. The administrative law judge found
       that McGranahan could understand and carry out “routine, repeti-
       tive, unskilled tasks with the ability to make basic decisions and ad-
       just to simple changes in a work setting; as long as interaction with
       the public, coworkers and supervisors is no more than frequent.”
       In doing so, the administrative law judge properly evaluated the
       medical record, the opinions of McGranahan’s mental health pro-
       viders, and the symptoms she alleged. And the administrative law
       judge also considered but partially rejected the medical opinion of
       two state agency psychological consultants, both of whom opined
       that McGranahan experienced only mild limitations, because the
       administrative law judge found that the medical evidence estab-
       lished that McGranahan experienced moderate, not mild, limita-
       tions in interacting with others and concentrating, persisting, or
       maintaining pace. The administrative law judge properly evaluated
       and articulated his consideration of this medical evidence in deter-
       mining McGranahan’s non-exertional limitations of performing
       routine, unskilled tasks with reduced interactions with others. See
       Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179.
              We AFFIRM the denial of McGranahan’s application for
       benefits.