Court Opinion

ID: 9951680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-18 19:01:07.254631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:07.262189
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11777     Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 03/18/2024   Page: 1 of 10

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]

                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-11777
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        JOHN ESCO, JR.,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                                                    Defendant- Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Alabama
                     D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00119-CWB
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11777        Document: 22-1       Date Filed: 03/18/2024      Page: 2 of 10

        2                         Opinion of the Court                   23-11777

        Before BRASHER, ABUDU and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Appellant John Esco, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
        affirming the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of his
        claim for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). 1 He argues that the
        administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in finding (1) Esco’s
        subjective complaints of pain were “not entirely consistent” with
        the record, (2) Esco did not meet Listing 1.04(A), and (3) Dr.
        Carter’s and Dr. Hayden’s opinions were not persuasive. Having
        read the parties’ briefs and reviewed the record, we affirm the
        district court’s order denying Esco’s claim for DIB.
                                            I.
               In a social security disability case in which the Appeal
        Council has denied review, we review the ALJ’s decision as the
        Commissioner’s final decision. Viverette v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
        13 F.4th 1309, 1313 (11th Cir. 2021). We review the ALJ’s decision
        for substantial evidence and his application of legal principles de
        novo. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). In
        reviewing for substantial evidence, “we may not decide the facts
        anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for” the
        ALJ’s. Viverette, 13 F.4th at 1314 (quotation marks omitted).

        1 The parties consented to have this case disposed of by a magistrate judge

        pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
USCA11 Case: 23-11777      Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 03/18/2024     Page: 3 of 10

        23-11777               Opinion of the Court                        3

        Substantial evidence is any relevant evidence, less than a
        preponderance, that a reasonable person would accept as adequate
        to support a conclusion. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d at 1211.
               A claimant must be disabled to be eligible for DIB, 42 U.S.C.
        § 423(a)(1)(E), and he bears the burden of proving that he is
        disabled. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211. A claimant is disabled if he
        cannot engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of a
        medically determinable impairment that 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).
               After considering a claimant’s complaints of pain, the ALJ
        may reject them as not credible, which finding we will review for
        substantial evidence. Marbury v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d 837, 839 (11th
        Cir. 1992). The ALJ must explicitly and adequately articulate his
        reasons if he discredits subjective testimony. Id. The credibility
        determination does not need to cite “particular phrases or
        formulations”, but it cannot merely be a broad rejection that does
        not allow us to conclude that the ALJ considered a claimant’s
        medical condition in its entirety. Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206,
        1210 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted).
               A claimant’s subjective complaints are insufficient alone to
        establish a disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see Edwards v.
        Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 (11th Cir. 1991). A claimant’s subjective
        testimony of pain and other symptoms can establish a finding of
        disability if the medical evidence supports it. Holt v. Sullivan, 921
USCA11 Case: 23-11777      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 03/18/2024     Page: 4 of 10

        4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11777

        F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th Cir. 1991). The claimant must show evidence
        of an underlying medical condition and either objective medical
        evidence confirming the severity of the alleged symptoms or
        evidence that the objectively determined medical condition is
        severe enough that it could reasonably be expected to give rise to
        the alleged pain. Id.
               Once this is established, the ALJ then evaluates the intensity
        and persistence of a claimant’s alleged symptoms and their effect
        on his ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). When evaluating
        the extent to which a claimant’s symptoms affect his capacity to
        perform basic work activities, the ALJ considers the daily activities;
        the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the symptoms;
        precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage,
        effectiveness, and side effects of medication taken to alleviate
        symptoms; treatment other than medication; any measures used to
        relieve symptoms; other factors concerning functional limitations
        and restrictions due to symptoms; and inconsistencies between the
        evidence and subjective statements. Id. § 404.1529(c)(3), (4).
               The record here demonstrates that substantial evidence
        supports the ALJ’s finding that Esco’s medically determinable
        impairments reasonably could be expected to cause some of his
        alleged symptoms but that his statements regarding the intensity,
        persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms were “not
        entirely consistent” with the evidence. In making the credibility
        determination, the ALJ referenced Esco’s medical records and
        Esco’s hearing testimony, which both indicated that his treatments
USCA11 Case: 23-11777      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 03/18/2024     Page: 5 of 10

        23-11777               Opinion of the Court                         5

        improved his functioning. The ALJ also considered both function
        reports submitted to the SSA and Esco’s hearing testimony, which
        showed that he was able to perform the activities of daily life, such
        as washing clothes, cooking basic microwave meals, driving, going
        shopping, dressing, and caring for his pets. While Esco did
        complain of pain and limitations associated with his impairments,
        subjective complaints alone are not sufficient to establish disability
        and evidence showed that his treatments were helping with his
        pain. Furthermore, those treatments and the information in the
        function reports showing daily activity are inconsistent with his
        subjective testimony. We conclude that the ALJ’s assessment
        satisfied the substantial evidence standard, and we affirm in this
        respect.
                                         II.
               The ALJ uses a five-step, sequential evaluation process to
        determine whether a claimant is disabled. Winschel v. Comm’r of
        Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). Specifically, the ALJ
        must evaluate: (1) whether the claimant engaged in substantial
        gainful work; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment;
        (3) whether the severe impairment meets or equals an impairment
        in the Listings of Impairments; (4) whether the claimant has the
        RFC to perform his past relevant work; and (5) whether, in the light
        of the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, there
        exist other jobs in the national economy that the claimant can
        perform. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v).
USCA11 Case: 23-11777      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 03/18/2024     Page: 6 of 10

        6                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11777

               Step three considers whether the claimant has shown that
        he has an impairment that “meets or equals a disability described
        in the Listing of Impairments [in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part
        404 of the Social Security regulations], which describes
        impairments that are considered severe enough to prevent a
        person from doing any gainful activity.” Davis v. Shalala, 985 F.2d
        528, 532 (11th Cir. 1993); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). “To ‘meet’
        a Listing, a claimant must have a diagnosis included in the Listings
        and must provide medical reports documenting that the conditions
        meet the specific criteria of the Listings and the duration
        requirement.” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1224 (11th Cir.
        2002). The duration requirement is satisfied if the impairment has
        lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12
        months. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509. “If a claimant’s condition meets or
        equals the listed impairments, he is conclusively presumed to be
        disabled and entitled to benefits.” Bowen v. City of New York, 476
        U.S. 467, 471, 106 S. Ct. 2022, 2025 (1986). Only if a claimant does
        not meet a listing does the analysis proceed to step four. Id.
              Listing 1.04(A) in effect at the time the ALJ made his decision
        provided in part:
                   Disorders of the spine (e.g., herniated nucleus
               pulposus, spinal arachnoiditis, spinal stenosis,
               osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, facet
               arthritis, vertebral fracture), resulting in compromise
               of a nerve root (including cauda equina) or the spinal
               cord. With:
USCA11 Case: 23-11777     Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 03/18/2024    Page: 7 of 10

        23-11777              Opinion of the Court                        7

              A. Evidence of nerve root compression characterized
                 by neuro‑anatomic distribution of pain, limitation
                 of motion of the spine, motor loss (atrophy with
                 associated muscle weakness or muscle weakness)
                 accompanied by sensory or reflect loss and, if
                 there is involvement of the lower back, positive
                 straight-leg raising test (sitting and supine).
        20 C.F.R. § Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 1.04(A) (effective through
        April 1, 2021).
                The record demonstrates that substantial evidence supports
        the ALJ’s finding that Esco did not meet Listing 1.04(A) because the
        evidence in the record did not show that his impairments rose to
        the listing level severity. The ALJ noted that Esco’s impairments
        did not rise to the level of severity contemplated by that listing
        because the diagnostic evidence did not show the diagnostic
        findings necessary for the listing and the physical examinations did
        not show the longitudinal or durational requirement of the listing.
        A 2019 MRI did not show evidence of cord or nerve root
        impingement, nor did a nerve conduction study in 2018. Thus,
        Esco failed to present evidence of ongoing nerve compression
        sufficient to meet the requirements of Listing 1.04(A), and the
        medical evidence supported the ALJ’s determination.
        Furthermore, as the ALJ noted, Esco failed to meet his burden of
        showing that his impairment satisfied the durational requirement
        of at least 12 months. The sporadic treatment notes Esco
        references are from different points in time (not continuous) when
USCA11 Case: 23-11777      Document: 22-1       Date Filed: 03/18/2024    Page: 8 of 10

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11777

        he met the requirements of the listing, and, thus, are insufficient to
        meet his burden. We conclude that the ALJ correctly determined
        that Esco failed to meet Listing 1.04(A), and we affirm in this
        respect.
                                         III.
               For claims filed before March 27, 2017, “[t]he opinion of a
        treating physician” had to be “given substantial or considerable
        weight unless good cause [was] shown to the contrary.” Phillips v.
        Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks
        omitted). “For claims filed . . . on or after March 27, 2017,” which
        applies in Esco’s case, an ALJ must “not defer or give any specific
        evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical
        opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including
        those from [a claimant’s] medical sources.”              20 C.F.R. §
        404.1520c(a). Instead, as we noted in Harner v. Soc. Sec. Admin.,
        Comm’r, the new regulation “provides several factors for
        determining what weight to give a claimant’s proffered medical
        opinions.” 38 F.4th 892, 897 (11th Cir. 2022). “Those factors
        include the supportability of the medical opinion, its consistency
        with other record evidence, the physician’s relationship with the
        claimant, the physician’s specialty, and other relevant information,
        such as the physician’s familiarity with the other record evidence
        and with making a claim for disability.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R.
        § 404.1520c(c)(1)‑(5)).
              The most important factors for the ALJ to consider when
        evaluating the persuasiveness of medical opinions are
USCA11 Case: 23-11777      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 03/18/2024     Page: 9 of 10

        23-11777               Opinion of the Court                         9

        supportability and consistency. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a). For
        supportability, “[t]he more relevant the objective medical evidence
        and supporting explanations presented by a medical source are to
        support his or her medical opinion(s) . . ., the more persuasive the
        medical opinions . . . will be.” Id. § 404.1520c(c)(1). For
        consistency, “[t]he more consistent a medical opinion(s) . . . is with
        the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical sources
        in the claim, the more persuasive the medical opinion(s) . . . will
        be.” Id. § 404.1520c(c)(2). The ALJ “will articulate how [he]
        considered the medical opinions and prior administrative medical
        findings in [the claimant’s] claim according to paragraph (b).” Id.
        § 404.1520c(a).
                The record demonstrates that substantial evidence supports
        the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Carter’s opinion was “not persuasive”
        and Dr. Hayden’s opinion “non persuasive,” because they were not
        entirely consistent with the evidence in the record. The ALJ
        properly considered the relevant factors including supportability
        and consistency in weighing the medical opinion evidence in the
        record. In making its determination, the ALJ cited Esco’s own
        testimony of his daily activities while living independently. The
        ALJ also stated that Dr. Carter’s own records did not support his
        opinion, finding the opinion not persuasive specifically as it related
        to the extensive limitations in walking, sitting, and standing, based
        on the lack of clinical observations or objective testing. The ALJ’s
        opinion highlighted that Dr. Hayden’s opinion was not fully
        consistent with his examination of Esco nor with Esco’s stated daily
        activities. We conclude that the weight the ALJ afforded to the
USCA11 Case: 23-11777     Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 03/18/2024     Page: 10 of 10

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 23-11777

        medical opinions of Dr. Carter and Dr. Hayden was supported by
        substantial evidence, and we affirm in this respect.
               Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, we
        affirm the district court’s order affirming the SSA’s denial of Esco’s
        claim for DIB.
              AFFIRMED.