Court Opinion

ID: 9964853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 00:00:44.747143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:44.409192
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30702           Document: 42-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/30/2024

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

                                                                                     FILED
                                   No. 23-30702                                   April 30, 2024
                                  ____________                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
Shaquita Thompson,

                                                                 Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                         versus

Social Security Administration, Martin O’Malley,
Commissioner,

                                            Defendant—Appellee.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                           USDC No. 2:22-CV-2149
                  ______________________________

Before Jones, Clement, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      The Social Security Administration denied Shaquita Thompson’s
claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
Thompson sought judicial review and the district court dismissed her
complaint. We AFFIRM.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
 Case: 23-30702          Document: 42-1          Page: 2       Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                                       No. 23-30702

        Thompson, a former housekeeper, alleges that she has been disabled
since June 16, 2020, due to back issues, peripheral neuropathy, sciatica,
spinal cord degeneration, diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis, and high
cholesterol. After holding a hearing, a Social Security Administration (SSA)
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that Thompson was not
disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.1 Relevant here, the
ALJ found that, although Thompson could not perform the work that she had
done in the past, Thompson had the ability to perform a range of sedentary
work subject to certain limitations. The ALJ considered the medical opinions
of three doctors when assessing Thompson’s residual functional capacity
(RFC): Drs. Karl Boatman, Charles Gruenwald, and Michael Day.2 After the
SSA Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s decision, Thompson
sought judicial review in district court. Upon recommendation from a
magistrate, the district court upheld the ALJ’s decision. Thompson appeals.
        Our review of a final SSA decision is limited to “whether the decision
is supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the proper
legal standards were used in evaluating the evidence.” Villa v. Sullivan, 895
F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “Under the
substantial-evidence standard, a court looks to an existing administrative
record and asks whether it contains ‘sufficient evidence’ to support the

        _____________________
        1
           The Social Security Act defines “disability” as the “inability 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 SSA uses a five-step process to evaluate whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).
        2
          “[R]esidual functional capacity is the most [a person] can still do despite [his or
her] limitations,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1), and is used at the fourth and fifth steps of
the SSA’s disability assessment, which consider whether the applicant can do his or her
past work or other work, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv)–(v), 416.920(a)(4)(iv)–(v).

                                             2
Case: 23-30702       Document: 42-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                                No. 23-30702

agency’s factual determinations.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154
(2019) (alteration adopted and citation omitted). “[T]he threshold for such
evidential sufficiency is not high”—it “is more than a mere scintilla.” Id.
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
      Thompson raises one argument on appeal: she contends that the SSA
failed to properly consider the medical opinion of Day when assessing
Thompson’s RFC. Specifically, she takes issue with the ALJ’s decision not
to incorporate Day’s conclusions that Thompson could stand and walk for
less than two hours per workday and could lift and carry less than ten pounds
into the RFC assessment.
      But the record shows that the ALJ did consider Day’s opinion and, in
fact, incorporated elements of it in the RFC assessment. Under the SSA
regulations, an ALJ must articulate how persuasive he or she finds medical
opinions and prior administrative medical findings in the record. 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520c(b), 416.920c(b). When making these findings, the ALJ
considers several factors including, most importantly, supportability and
consistency. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(b)(2), 416.920c(b)(2). The
supportability factor addresses the objective medical evidence and
explanation the medical source provides in support of an opinion. 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520c(c)(1), 416.920c(c)(1). The consistency factor focuses on the
degree to which a medical opinion is consistent with other record evidence.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(2), 416.920c(c)(2).
      The ALJ complied with these regulations in the decision, finding that
Day’s opinion was generally “supported by his detailed report documenting
his findings and observations” but “some of his [conclusions] [were] not
entirely consistent with his own findings or with the other substantial
evidence of record.” The ALJ noted, for instance, that Day’s own notes
showed that Thompson had intact arm strength and normal shoulders,

                                      3
Case: 23-30702         Document: 42-1      Page: 4     Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                                  No. 23-30702

elbows, and wrists, which contradicted Day’s finding that Thompson could
not lift more than ten pounds. The ALJ also explained that Day’s standing,
walking, lifting, and carrying restrictions were inconsistent with other clinical
findings and examination notes during the relevant period, which showed
that Thompson retained normal motor strength in her arms and legs,
displayed a normal range of motion, and was neurologically intact.
Nonetheless, the ALJ still adopted some of Day’s opinion in the RFC
determination, which restricted Thompson to a range of sedentary work
while using an assistive device to walk, stand, and balance with no working at
unprotected heights.
       Thompson argues that the evidence the ALJ cited about Thompson’s
arm strength was “entirely irrelevant” to her claim because she was not
alleging any impairment affecting her arms. But Thompson’s ability to lift
and carry was relevant because it is a key component in the RFC analysis. 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(b), 416.945(b) (“A limited ability to perform certain
physical demands of work activity, such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting,
carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions . . . may reduce your
ability to do past work and other work.”).
       Thompson also contends that the ALJ erred by accepting
Gruenwald’s opinion over Day’s because Gruenwald was a “non-examining
plastic surgeon.” But this argument fails too. Thompson offers no support
for her contention that Gruenwald’s specialty as a plastic surgeon is
disqualifying. To the contrary, because Gruenwald was a state agency
consultant, the SSA regulations required the ALJ to consider Gruenwald’s
findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513a(b)(1), 416.913a(b)(1). In any event, the ALJ
only found Gruenwald’s opinion partly persuasive, rejecting Gruenwald’s

                                       4
 Case: 23-30702          Document: 42-1          Page: 5       Date Filed: 04/30/2024

                                       No. 23-30702

conclusion that Thompson could perform a limited range of “light” work
instead restricting Thompson to a reduced range of sedentary work.3
        At bottom, Thompson essentially asks this court to reweigh the
evidence in her favor. But that’s not something that we are empowered to do
under our limited standard of review. See Masterson v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d
267, 272 (5th Cir. 2002) (“We will not re-weigh the evidence, try the
questions de novo, or substitute our judgment for the Commissioner’s . . .”).
The ALJ was not required to base Thompson’s RFC on any particular
medical opinion. See Webster v. Kijakazi, 19 F.4th 715, 718–19 (5th Cir. 2021)
(“ALJs are no longer required to give controlling weight to a treating
physician’s opinion . . . . [A]n ALJ instead considers a list of factors in
determining what weight, if any, to give a medical opinion.”). The record
shows that, consistent with the SSA regulations, the ALJ considered the
relevant evidence when assessing Thompson’s RFC, incorporating Day’s
opinion, as well as portions of Boatman’s and Gruenwald’s findings, and
resolved the conflicts between the sources.
        AFFIRMED.

        _____________________
        3
          “Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting
or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b).
Sedentary work involves work performed primarily in the seated position, with lifting of no
more than 10 pounds at a time and occasional standing and walking. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1567(a), 416.967(a)

                                             5