Kinnard v. Commissioner of Social Security , 426 F. App'x 835 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 17, 2011
No. 10-15227 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv-00628-SCB-AEP
GEORGE KINNARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 17, 2011)
Before HULL, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
George Kinnard appeals the order that affirmed the denial of his
applications for disability insurance benefits and supplement security income from
the Social Security Administration. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). Kinnard
challenges the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert. We affirm.
Kinnard argues that the hypothetical question was incomplete because the
administrative law judge did not mention that the claimant could tolerate frequent
exposure to certain environmental conditions, but we disagree. A “hypothetical
question[] adequately account[s] for a claimant’s limitations . . . when the
question[] otherwise implicitly account[s] for the[] limitations.” Winschel v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2011). The administrative
law judge instructed the vocational expert that the hypothetical individual had “no
significant environmental limitations,” which accounted for the minimal
environmental limitations that the administrative law judge included in Kinnard’s
residual functional capacity assessment.
Kinnard also argues that the questions posed to the vocational expert did not
account for his difficulty in maintaining concentration, persistence, and pace
because of his depression and substance abuse, but again we disagree.
“Concentration, persistence, or pace refers to the ability to sustain focused
attention and concentration sufficiently long to permit the timely and appropriate
completion of tasks commonly found in work settings.” 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt.
P, App. 1. The administrative law judge credited the findings of Steven Kanakis, a
2
consultative psychologist, that Kinnard had logical and coherent thought
processes, fair concentration and attention, and of Alfred Jonas, a psychiatrist, that
Kinnard could complete and make judgments about simple matters, suffered no
more than mild impairments in completing and making judgments about complex
matters, and could interact with others and respond appropriately in usual work
surroundings. Based on this evidence, the administrative law judge determined
that Kinnard had “mild to moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, and
pace,” and hypothetical questions asked by the administrative law judge and
Kinnard’s attorney accounted for these limitations, see Winschel, 631 F.3d at
1180. The administrative law judge asked the vocational expert to determine what
work could be performed by a claimant who was mildly limited in his ability to
understand, remember, and execute complex instructions; mildly to moderately
limited in his ability to make judgments on complex work-related decisions;
mildly limited in his ability to interact appropriately with the public, supervisors,
and coworkers; and mildly limited in his ability to respond appropriate to changes
in a routine work setting. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c) (the “limited ability to
carry out certain mental activities” encompasses “limitations in understanding,
remembering, and carrying out instructions, and in responding appropriately to
supervision, co-workers, and work pressures in a work setting”). Kinnard’s
3
attorney later asked if a marked limitation in executing detailed instructions would
eliminate any of the four jobs available to Kinnard, and the vocational expert
responded that the limitation would not reduce the availability of the jobs because
they were “simple, repetitive, one to three-step jobs.” See Simila v. Astrue, 573
F.3d 503, 521–22 (7th Cir. 2009) (“claimants who . . . are ‘mildly to moderately
limited in [concentration, persistence, or pace]’ are able to perform ‘simple and
repetitive light work’” (quoting Sims v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 424, 431 (7th Cir.
2002)). The vocational expert understood and considered all of Kinnard’s
limitations.
The denial of Kinnard’s application for benefits is AFFIRMED.
4