Court Opinion

ID: 9398370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 00:00:44.710725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:33.055273
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51045        Document: 00516767943             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/30/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-51045
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     May 30, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Lydia Elida Silva,                                                                 Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:21-CV-287
                     ______________________________

   Before Clement, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Lydia Silva appeals a denial of Social Security disability benefits. We
   AFFIRM.
                                               I
         Five years ago, Lydia Silva applied for disability benefits. Silva
   allegedly suffers from depression, obesity, spinal impairments, and more.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51045      Document: 00516767943          Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/30/2023

                                    No. 22-51045

   The Social Security Administration, however, denied her claim. So, Silva
   requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). But, the ALJ
   denied Silva’s claim, too, finding that—although she offered medical
   evidence of severe ailments—she didn’t have a qualifying disability. The
   district court, upon recommendation of a magistrate judge, affirmed. Now,
   on appeal, Silva raises two arguments. First, she maintains that the ALJ failed
   to properly review the medical opinion of Dr. Thomas Pfeil. Second, Silva
   argues that the ALJ failed to fully consider whether her ailments met any of
   the impairments under Listing 1.04 of 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1.
                                         II
          When reviewing a “final decision [of the Commissioner],” we ask
   whether it’s “supported by substantial evidence” and if “the Commissioner
   used the proper legal standards to evaluate the evidence.” Whitehead v.
   Colvin, 820 F.3d 776, 779 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (quotations and
   citation omitted). A decision is unsupported by substantial evidence when
   “no credible evidentiary choices or medical findings support the decision.”
   Id. (quotations and citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is more than a
   scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a
   reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Villa v.
   Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021–22 (5th Cir. 1990) (quotations and citation
   omitted). We are, at the end of the day, “exceedingly deferential” on review.
   Taylor v. Astrue, 706 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).
          Both of Silva’s arguments fail on appeal. First, she contends that the
   ALJ failed to fully consider the medical testimony of Dr. Thomas Pfeil. Silva
   doesn’t deny that the ALJ reviewed Dr. Pfeil’s opinions, or that she found
   some “portions [of it] not persuasive.” Instead, she argues that the ALJ
   didn’t properly “articulate how” the doctor’s opinions weren’t supported by
   the record. But, the ALJ clearly explained the shortcomings of Dr. Pfeil’s

                                              2
Case: 22-51045     Document: 00516767943           Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/30/2023

                                    No. 22-51045

   testimony. Specifically, the ALJ noted that although “some of the [doctor’s]
   opinion appear[] supported and consistent” with the record, other parts
   weren’t due to the lack of a “documented need for [an] assistive device” and
   plain evidence that Silva “had work activity in late 2018.” Because those
   facts directly contradicted some of Dr. Pfeil’s determinations, the ALJ
   turned to other evidence in the record, including two different medical
   opinions.
          As we’ve noted time and again, an “ALJ is not always required to do
   an exhaustive point-by-point discussion” of the evidence she reviews. Audler
   v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 2007). And, even if the ALJ didn’t
   address every aspect of Dr. Pfeil’s opinions, that “does not necessarily mean
   that [s]he failed to consider [them].” Hammond v. Barnhart, 124 F. App’x
   847, 851 (5th Cir. 2005). Here, the ALJ explained that her findings came only
   “[a]fter careful consideration of all the evidence . . . .” Because the ALJ
   clearly grappled with Dr. Pfeil’s opinions, we won’t second guess her
   decision on the matter. See Garcia v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 700, 704 (5th Cir.
   2018) (“We will not re-weigh the evidence . . . [or] substitute our judgment
   for the Commissioner’s . . . .”) (quotations and citation omitted)).
          Second, Silva contends that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate
   whether her ailments met any of the listed impairments under Listing 1.04 of
   20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. The ALJ plainly found that Silva’s
   impairments didn’t “meet[] or medically equal[] . . . one of the listed
   impairments” under Listing 1.04. Silva doesn’t deny that. Instead, she
   argues that the ALJ didn’t “include any meaningful discussion” of how
   Listing 1.04 wasn’t met and that the ALJ only focused on the “inability to
   ambulate” part of the listing.
          Both arguments, however, fail. The ALJ found—in an opinion
   detailing the medical evidence in the record—that Silva didn’t prove up an

                                             3
Case: 22-51045      Document: 00516767943           Page: 4     Date Filed: 05/30/2023

                                     No. 22-51045

   “inability to ambulate effectively” or offer any “evidence of atrophy or other
   serious weakness[] as described in listing 1.04.” Consequently, the ALJ’s
   decision was clearly based on a full reading of both Listing 1.04 and the
   evidence in the record. At the end of the day, Silva was required to prove up
   any impairment under Listing 1.04. See Audler, 501 F.3d at 449 (“To
   demonstrate the required loss of function for a musculoskeletal impairment
   [under Listing 1.04], [the petitioner] must demonstrate either an ‘inability to
   ambulate effectively on a sustained basis . . . , or the inability to perform fine
   and gross movements effectively on a sustained basis.’”); Selders v. Sullivan,
   914 F.2d 614, 619 (5th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (“The claimant must provide
   medical findings that support each of the criteria for the equivalent
   impairment determination.”). She failed to do so. We AFFIRM.

                                               4