Tijuana Tuggerson-Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security , 572 F. App'x 949 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-14168 Date Filed: 07/24/2014 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-14168
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:12-cv-00381-GKS-PRL
TIJUANA TUGGERSON-BROWN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 24, 2014)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-14168 Date Filed: 07/24/2014 Page: 2 of 6
Tijuana Tuggerson-Brown appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the
Social Security Commissioner’s (“Commissioner”) conclusion that she was not
entitled to disability benefits. On appeal here, Tuggerson-Brown raises two
arguments: (1) that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), at step two of the
sequential analysis, erred in concluding that her depression, lumbar degenerative
disc disease, back, neck, and leg pain, and diabetes, separately or combined, did
not constitute a severe impairment, and (2) that the ALJ failed to consider those
impairments in conjunction with others at the latter stages of the sequential
analysis.
We review the Commissioner’s decisions with deference to factual findings
and close scrutiny of legal conclusions. Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,
496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007). Factual findings are conclusive if they are
supported by substantial evidence, or enough evidence such that a reasonable
person would find it adequate to support the conclusion. Id.
According to administration regulations, once before an ALJ, the evaluation
of an alleged disability should follow a five-step sequential process. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(a)(4); see also Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178
(11th Cir. 2011). At the second step, the ALJ considers the medical severity of the
applicant’s impairments, and, if he finds that an applicant does not have a “severe”
impairment or combination of impairments, he should conclude that there is no
2
Case: 13-14168 Date Filed: 07/24/2014 Page: 3 of 6
disability. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). We have described step two as a “filter”
requiring the denial of any disability claim where no severe impairment or
combination of impairments is present. Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585, 588
(11th Cir. 1987). We have also described step two as designed to screen out
groundless claims, where the applicant’s medical problems could not possibly
prevent her from working. Stratton v. Bowen, 827 F.2d 1447, 1452 & n.9 (11th
Cir. 1987). To proceed to step three of the evaluation process, an ALJ need only
conclude that an applicant had “at least one” severe impairment. Jamison, 814
F.2d at 588.
Where an applicant has multiple impairments, the ALJ considers the
combined effect of all impairments without regard to whether any individual
impairment would demonstrate disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1523. At step three of
the sequential process, the ALJ determines whether an applicant has
“impairment(s)” that meets one of the listed disabilities. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).
The regulations state that, where no individual impairment meets a listing, the ALJ
will consider whether a combination of impairments is medically equivalent to a
listing. Id. § 404.1526; see also Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1224 (11th
Cir. 2002).
At step four of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ considers his assessment
of the applicant’s Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) and past relevant work to
3
Case: 13-14168 Date Filed: 07/24/2014 Page: 4 of 6
determine whether the applicant can return to her former work. Id.
§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). In determining RFC, the ALJ considers all medically
determinable impairments. Id. § 404.1545(a)(2). At the fifth step, the
administration considers the same RFC assessment and other information to see if
the applicant can adjust to other work in light of her “impairment(s).” Id.
§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v) and (g)(1).
In Wilson, the ALJ acknowledged that Wilson suffered multiple injuries and
then stated that he “did not have an impairment or combination of impairments”
that equaled a listing. 284 F.3d at 1224 (emphasis omitted). We held that
statement was sufficient to demonstrate that the ALJ considered the cumulative
effect of the applicant’s impairments. Id. at 1224-25; see also Jones v. Dep’t of
Health & Human Servs., 941 F.2d 1529, 1533 (11th Cir. 1991) (reaching the same
conclusion based on similar language).
As we have described, step two of the sequential evaluation acts as a
“screening” or “filter” to eliminate groundless claims. See Stratton, 827 F.2d at
1452 & n.9; Jamison, 814 F.2d at 588. Accordingly, we have recognized that step
two requires only a finding of “at least one” severe impairment to continue on to
the later steps. See Jamison, 814 F.2d at 588. Further, the regulations state that the
only consequence of the analysis at step two is that, if the ALJ finds no severe
impairment or impairments, he should reach a conclusion of no disability. See
4
Case: 13-14168 Date Filed: 07/24/2014 Page: 5 of 6
C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). Here, the ALJ found multiple severe impairments and
accordingly proceeded to step three of the evaluation. Based on our precedent and
the regulations, therefore, it is apparent that there is no need for an ALJ to identify
every severe impairment at step two. Accordingly, even assuming that
Tuggerson-Brown is correct that her additional impairments were “severe,” the
ALJ’s recognition of that as a fact would not, in any way, have changed the
step-two analysis, and she cannot demonstrate error below.
While the ALJ did not need to determine whether every alleged impairment
was “severe,” he was required to consider all impairments, regardless of severity,
in conjunction with one another in performing the latter steps of the sequential
evaluation. Despite Tuggerson-Brown’s arguments to the contrary, it is apparent
from the face of the ALJ’s decision and the RFC report relied upon by the ALJ that
the ALJ did, in fact, consider all medical evidence in combination in concluding
that Tuggerson-Brown was not disabled. In performing his analysis, the ALJ
stated that he evaluated whether Tuggerson-Brown had an “impairment or
combination of impairments” that met a listing and that he considered “all
symptoms” in determining her RFC. Under our precedent, those statements are
enough to demonstrate that the ALJ considered all necessary evidence. See
Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1224-25. The ALJ went beyond those statements in his
analysis, specifically discussing evidence of Tuggerson-Brown’s depression,
5
Case: 13-14168 Date Filed: 07/24/2014 Page: 6 of 6
diabetes, leg, neck, and back pain, and mild degenerative disc disease. The RFC
report likewise addressed many of the same symptoms. Accordingly, the record
sufficiently demonstrates that the ALJ properly considered all of
Tuggerson-Brown’s impairments, even those not specifically found to be severe, in
reaching a conclusion that she was not disabled. Tuggerson-Brown does not
specifically challenge or assert that the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion was not based
on substantial evidence in some other regard, and therefore we affirm the denial of
disability benefits.
AFFIRMED.
6