Court Opinion

ID: 9891191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 19:00:46.769765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:39.009316
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11154    Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 10/17/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11154
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       MALISA RANAE SIMS,
                                                     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-01082-JHE
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11154     Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 10/17/2023    Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-11154

       Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Malisa Ranae Sims appeals the magistrate judge’s order af-
       firming the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s
       denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security in-
       come. Ms. Sims argues that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
       erred by failing to include certain non-exertional limitations in its
       hypotheticals to the vocational examiner (“VE”). We disagree and
       affirm.
               In August of 2018, Ms. Sims filed applications for social se-
       curity disability benefits and for supplemental security income.
       Following the denial of both applications, Ms. Sims requested a
       hearing, which the ALJ held on January 13, 2020. The ALJ deter-
       mined that Ms. Sims has the severe impairments of major depres-
       sive disorder and anxiety. The ALJ also found that Ms. Sims “has
       the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at
       all exertional levels” but with certain non-exertional limitations.
       See D.E. 11-3 at 21. For example, according to the ALJ, Ms. Sims
       “could tolerate ordinary work pressures, but should avoid exces-
       sive workloads, quick decision making, rapid changes, and multiple
       demands. She could tolerate occasional interaction with the pub-
       lic, co-workers, and supervisors” and “[c]hanges in the work rou-
       tine should be simple and occur no more than occasionally.” Id.
       “Considering [Ms. Sims’] age, education, work experience, and re-
       sidual functional capacity,” the ALJ concluded that “there are jobs
USCA11 Case: 22-11154     Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 10/17/2023    Page: 3 of 7

       22-11154              Opinion of the Court                        3

       that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that [she]
       can perform.” Id. at 24.
              Ms. Sims sought review of the ALJ’s decision from the SSA’s
       Appeals Council, and that request was denied. Ms. Sims then filed
       a lawsuit in the Northern District of Alabama, alleging that the Ap-
       peals Council’s review of the ALJ’s decision was “purely conclu-
       sory” and “epitomizes perfunctory adherence to the ALJ decision.”
       D.E. 1 at 2. The magistrate judge—to whom the parties con-
       sented—ruled that “substantial evidence support[ed] the ALJ’s de-
       termination that [Ms.] Sims failed to demonstrate a disability, and
       the ALJ applied the proper standards to reach this conclusion.”
       D.E. 20 at 5–6. This is Ms. Sims’ appeal.
              “We review de novo the district court’s decision on whether
       substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.” Wilson v. Barn-
       hart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is
       “such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as ad-
       equate to support a conclusion.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436,
       1440 (11th Cir. 1997). “We may not decide the facts anew, reweigh
       the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the [Commis-
       sioner].” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th
       Cir. 2011).
               The Social Security Regulations provide a “five-step sequen-
       tial evaluation process” to be used when deciding whether a claim-
       ant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). These steps are:
             (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in sub-
             stantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has
USCA11 Case: 22-11154      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 10/17/2023     Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11154

              a severe impairment or combination of impairments;
              (3) whether the impairment meets or equals the se-
              verity of the specified impairments in the Listing of
              Impairments; (4) based on a residual functional capac-
              ity (‘RFC’) assessment, whether the claimant can per-
              form any of his or her past relevant work despite the
              impairment; 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.
              Ms. Sims’ challenge on appeal relates to the fifth step—
       whether there are a significant number of jobs in the national econ-
       omy that she could perform. When making this determination,
       the ALJ may “apply[ ] the Medical Vocational Guidelines or . . .
       obtain[ ] the testimony of a vocational expert. See Winschel at 1180.
       “In order for a vocational expert’s testimony to constitute substan-
       tial evidence, the ALJ must pose a hypothetical question which
       comprises all of the claimant’s impairments.” Id.
               Ms. Sims argues that “the ALJ’s hypotheticals upon which
       the VE relied were incomplete. . . . because [they] failed to include
       all of the limitations identified by the ALJ.” Br. for Appellant at 14.
       Specifically, she states that the ALJ did not include “limitations re-
       lated to time off-task or absenteeism”—the former being “related
       to her depression and anxiety that would require her to be off task
       during the workday” and the latter being based on her “need for
       frequent bathroom breaks related to the removal of her
USCA11 Case: 22-11154     Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 10/17/2023    Page: 5 of 7

       22-11154              Opinion of the Court                        5

       submandibular gla[n]d that requires excessive water consumption
       which would require to be off task during the workday[.]” Id. at
       14–15.
               In response, the Commissioner argues that Ms. Sims waived
       this argument because “at the district court level, [she] completely
       failed to identify any specific mental work-related limitations that
       the ALJ did not include in the hypothetical; instead, she merely as-
       serted generally that the hypothetical question did not include or
       account for her depression and mental health problems.” Br. for
       Appellee at 23. In the alternative, the Commissioner asserts that
       substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding, and that “[t]he ALJ
       was not required to include [Ms. Sims’] unsupported allegations of
       limitations in the hypothetical question to the VE or to accept the
       VE’s testimony in response to hypothetical questions that included
       unsupported allegations.” Id. at 34.
               Even assuming Ms. Sims did not waive this argument, we
       are unpersuaded that the ALJ presented an improper hypothetical
       question to the vocational expert. The written findings show that
       the ALJ considered Ms. Sims’ “complain[t] at the hearing that her
       antihypertensive medication causes frequent urination and fa-
       tigue” but found that “the treatment records show no such com-
       plaints.” D.E. 11-3 at 19. And while “medical evidence confirm[ed]
       that [Ms. Sims] underwent submandibular gland removal in 2011”
       . . . there [was] no indication of any other ongoing work-related
       limitations related to this impairment.” Id. The ALJ also evaluated
       the medical evidence on Ms. Sims’ anxiety, depression, crying
USCA11 Case: 22-11154      Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 10/17/2023     Page: 6 of 7

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11154

       spells, and mental health treatment. The ALJ found that Ms. Sims’
       “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be ex-
       pected to cause some of the alleged symptoms” but concluded that
       Ms. Sims’ “statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and
       limiting effects of these symptoms [were] not entirely consistent
       with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” Id.
       at 22-23. Specifically, the ALJ determined that “[t]he treatment rec-
       ords and [psychologist,] Dr. [Jack L. Bentley, Jr.’s] examination re-
       port do not provide objective support for [Ms. Sims’] allegations
       that she is unable to work because of frequent urination and re-
       stroom breaks, crying spells, and lack of energy.” Id. at 23.
               The ALJ did not include certain limitations that Ms. Sims al-
       leged she suffered, but the ALJ found that those limitations were
       not supported by the record. We conclude the ALJ did not err in
       failing to include these limitations in the hypothetical presented to
       the vocational expert. As an initial matter, “the hypothetical need
       only include ‘the claimant’s impairments,’ . . . not each and every
       symptom of the claimant.” Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496
       F.3d 1253, 1270 (11th Cir. 2007). And here the particular “charac-
       teristics that the [ALJ] omitted are among those that [Ms. Sims] al-
       leged to suffer but were . . . not supported by” the medical evidence
       in the record. Id. Because “the ALJ was not required to include
       findings in the hypothetical that the ALJ had properly rejected as
       unsupported” we find the hypothetical presented was proper.
       Crawford v. Comm’r Of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1161 (11th Cir. 2004).
       See also Lee v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 448 Fed. App’x 952, 953–954 (11th
       Cir. 2011).
USCA11 Case: 22-11154   Document: 40-1    Date Filed: 10/17/2023   Page: 7 of 7

       22-11154             Opinion of the Court                    7

             We therefore affirm.
             AFFIRMED.