Yoelmy Fernandez Rodriguez v. Nancy A. Berryhill ( 2020 )

USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 1 of 22
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-11390
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-24554-CMA
YOELMY FERNANDEZ RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 2, 2020)
Before ROSENBAUM, ANDERSON and DUBINA.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 2 of 22
Appellant Yoelmy Fernandez Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) appeals the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (“R&R”)
that granted summary judgment to the Social Security Commissioner
(“Commissioner”), concluding that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
properly denied Rodriguez’s applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”)
and supplemental security income (“SSI”). Based on our review of the record, and
after reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s order.
I.
Rodriguez is a 43-year old male, who has a 12th grade education and
difficulty communicating in English. He previously worked as a warehouse
worker/stocker before his alleged disability. He applied for DIB and SSI on July
28, 2015, alleging a disability onset date of June 1, 2013. In his disability report,
Rodriguez stated that the conditions limiting his ability to work were his nerves
and his bipolar disorder. He noted that he stopped working because his employer
dismissed him for reasons unrelated to his health. In his functional report,
Rodriguez asserted that his conditions limited his ability to work because he was
disoriented, could not cope with stress, and suffered from insomnia. He stated that
he was very depressed, stayed in bed most of the day and did not leave his house
often. He explained that his conditions limited his communication skills, memory,
concentration, understanding, and completion of tasks.
2
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 3 of 22
Rodriguez’s friend and roommate, Yohan Torres (“Torres”), completed a
third-party function report, stating his observations that Rodriguez’s conditions
limited his ability to work because he was not able to perform well in a social
environment. Torres also explained that Rodriguez’s close friends noticed that
Rodriguez had changed significantly since the onset of his conditions. Torres
reported that Rodriguez performed light housework, went grocery shopping,
handled money, and spent time with family and close friends.
The Commissioner denied Rodriguez’s claim initially and on
reconsideration. Rodriguez requested a hearing before an ALJ. At the hearing in
October 2017, Rodriguez’s counsel amended his disability onset date to August 19,
2015. Rodriguez testified that he had completed his high school education in
Cuba, had never married, and did not have children. He stated that he previously
worked in supermarkets and similar stores stocking merchandise and that he held
these jobs from 2002 to 2012. He explained that his psychiatric problems began
around the time his long-term partner raped his 12-year-old nephew. He stated that
he began hearing voices, he enjoyed nothing, had no desires, slept very little during
the night, did not enjoy being around other people, and mainly reclined during the
day. At the time of the hearing, he lived with his mother, who did most of the
cooking and cleaning for him. He admitted to using social media and playing
video games on his phone, drinking alcohol when he was desperate and smoking
3
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 4 of 22
cigarettes. He testified that he could not work because he did not have the desire to
do anything and at times he gave “bad responses to people.” (R. Doc. 14 at 40–
49.)
A vocational expert (“VE”) testified that Rodriguez previously worked as a
warehouse worker, which equated to medium level work. The ALJ asked the VE
to assume a hypothetical: whether an individual of Rodriguez’s age, education, and
work history, who was limited to simple, routine and repetitive tasks that were not
conducted at production rate pace, only had occasional interaction with
supervisors, co-workers, and the public and did not engage in tasks concerning the
safety and welfare of others, could perform Rodriguez’s past work as a warehouse
worker. The VE responded that the individual could perform such work. The ALJ
also asked the VE to assume the same hypothetical scenario, but the individual was
off task 20% of the day. The VE responded that such an individual would not be
able to maintain employment. Rodriguez’s attorney questioned the VE and asked
her to assume the same hypothetical individual described by the ALJ, but with the
limitations described by Dr. Carlos Danger, a consultative psychiatrist: that
Rodriguez had mild limitations in understanding, remembering, and carrying out
simple instructions and that he had marked limitations with more complex
instructions, interacting with others, and responding appropriately to usual work
4
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 5 of 22
situations. The VE admitted that such an individual, with these limitations, would
not be able to engage in substantial gainful activity. (R. Id. at 49–53.)
The ALJ also had medical evidence in the record postdating Rodriguez’s
application. This evidence showed that on August 19, 2015, Rodriguez visited
Vivian Gonzalez-Diaz, Ph.D. for a consultative psychological examination at the
request of the state agency. At the exam, Rodriguez reported loss of energy, lack
of motivation to perform tasks or chores, increased appetite, difficulties
concentrating, feelings of worthlessness, occasional auditory hallucinations, lack of
motivation to get out of bed at times, tremors at times, passive death wishes at
times, and weekly panic attacks characterized by an abrupt period exhibiting
accelerated heart rate, tremulousness, and sweatiness. (R. Id. at 357–60.)
Rodriguez stated that his symptoms began four years before, when his ex-partner
sexually abused his nephew. Rodriguez denied suicidal thoughts and did not
complain of delusions but stated that he had daily auditory hallucinations.
Dr. Gonzalez-Diaz reported that Rodriguez’s behavior, attitude, and
cooperation were adequate. Dr. Gonzalez-Diaz observed that Rodriguez was fully
oriented in all spheres with goal-oriented associations, that his mental status
examination revealed appropriate speech, a depressed mood, congruent affect, full
orientation, logical associations and thought processes, normal stream of thought,
and mild preoccupation and worries for his nephew. Dr. Gonzalez-Diaz diagnosed
5
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 6 of 22
Rodriguez as having low average intelligence and noted that his attention and
concentration were adequate. He diagnosed Rodriguez with major depressive
disorder, recurrent and severe, with psychotic features; tobacco use disorder,
severe; and ruled out bipolar disorder, depressed type. He listed Rodriguez’s
prognosis as fair/guarded. (R. Id.)
The medical evidence also included a Psychiatric Review Technique form
(“PRTF”) completed by Dr. Jennifer Meyer, Ph.D., a psychologist. The form
indicated that Rodriguez had no restriction of activities of daily living, mild
difficulties in maintaining social function, moderate difficulties in maintaining
concentration, persistence or pace, and no repeated episodes of decompensation.
In an accompanying Mental Residual Functional Capacity form, Dr. Meyer opined
that Rodriguez had moderate limitations in his abilities to understand and
remember detailed instructions; to carry out detailed instructions; to maintain
attention and concentration for extended periods; to complete a normal workday
and workweek without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms and to
perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest
periods; and to respond appropriately to changes in the work setting. She further
stated that Rodriguez would have difficulty responding to high-stress and fast-
paced work environments, but he appeared capable of completing simple,
repetitive tasks and adapting to simple, gradual changes in the work environment.
6
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 7 of 22
(R. Doc. 14 at 66–76.) In connection with a second state agency review of
Rodriguez’s file, Dr. George Grubbs, a state agency psychological consultant,
affirmed Dr. Meyer’s opinions and statements. (R. Id. at 81–90, 91–100.)
The medical evidence also included a report from Dr. Geraldine Mattia, a
psychiatrist with Jackson Health System. Rodriguez visited Dr. Mattia for
treatment for his depression, which he disclosed began after his ex-partner
molested a relative. Dr. Mattia noted that Rodriguez had a history of major
depression with psychotic features. He observed Rodriguez to be withdrawn and
tearful, prescribed medication, and directed him to return. Rodriguez visited Dr.
Mattia again, complaining of occasional poor sleep. Dr. Mattia noted that
Rodriguez had coherent and relevant speech. Rodriguez saw Dr. Mattia again two
months later, complaining of poor sleep, anger, and irritability. Dr. Mattia
believed that an increase in one of the prescriptions would help because Rodriguez
was difficult, had limited insight and judgment, a paucity of words, and a high
degree of irritability. (R. Id. at 364–70.)
When Rodriguez returned to Jackson Health System in July 2016, Louis
Antoine, M.D., reported that Rodriguez’s condition was stable. He had normal
orientation, normal activity, fair eye contact, broad affect, logical thoughts, and no
suicidal thoughts. In September 2016, Rodriguez went to Jackson Behavioral
Health Outpatient for a follow-up on his major depression, and an advanced
7
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 8 of 22
practice registered nurse met with him and noted that Rodriguez exhibited labile
affect and mood, was angry, verbally explosive, and biting his nails. In November
2016, Dr. Antoine reported that Rodriguez was less agitated, was oriented with fair
eye contact, had logical thoughts, no delusions, and no suicidal ideas. In January
2017, Rodriguez reported increased depression due to a recent family member’s
death. Dr. Antoine documented that Rodriguez had regular orientation and
activity, fair eye contact, a broad affect, a normal mood, logical thought processes,
no delusions, and fair judgment. In March, Rodriguez saw Dr. Antoine, who noted
that Rodriguez’s judgment and insight appeared fair and he had no suicidal ideas.
Because Rodriguez reported no side effects from his medications, Dr. Antoine
directed him to continue them. (R. Id. at 380–96.)
In April 2017, Rodriguez had a consultative psychiatric examination with
Carlos Danger, M.D., at the request of the ALJ. Rodriguez reported feelings of
anxiety, unwellness, depression, thoughts of helplessness and hopelessness, low
self-esteem, difficulty functioning and maintaining a job, and auditory
hallucinations. Dr. Danger noted that Rodriguez was taking multiple medications
that made diagnosis on the bipolar spectrum a possibility. Dr. Danger stated that
although Rodriguez may have exaggerated his symptoms, Rodriguez appeared to
have an underlying psychiatric illness that interfered with employability.
Following the examination, Dr. Danger opined that Rodriguez had mild limitations
8
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 9 of 22
in understanding, remembering, and carrying out simple instructions and that he
had marked limitations with more complex instructions, interacting with others,
and responding appropriately to usual work situations. Dr. Danger completed an
accompanying Mental Medical Source Statement of Ability to do Work-Related
Activities wherein he stated that, among other things, Rodriguez exhibited
“marked” limitations in his abilities to carry out complex instructions, make
judgments on complex work-related decisions, interact appropriately with the
public, with supervisors, and with coworkers, and respond appropriately to usual
work situations and to changes in routine work setting. (R. Id. at 372–76.)
In May 2017, Rodriguez met with Dr. Antoine, who reported that Rodriguez
had no marked limitations. In July, however, Rodriguez informed Dr. Antoine that
he was continuing to hear voices, was agitated, had mood swings, anxiety,
paranoia, difficulty sleeping, and nightmares. Dr. Antoine documented that
Rodriguez had moderate limitations with normal orientation, logical thought
process, and a stable mental status. Dr. Antoine directed Rodriguez to continue his
medications. In September, Rodriguez reported to Dr. Antoine that he was not
doing well because a recent hurricane had knocked out his electricity and he was
afraid of the dark. Dr. Antoine documented that Rodriguez’s mental status
examinations revealed moderate limitations with normal orientation, logical
thought process, fair insight and judgment, and a stable mental status. Dr. Antoine
9
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 10 of 22
also noted that Rodriguez exhibited fair eye contact, labile affect, dysphoric mood,
obsessional thought process, and paranoid delusions. (R. Id. at 392–96, 417–18.)
II.
After the hearing, the ALJ denied Rodriguez’s applications, concluding that
he was not disabled. The ALJ applied the five-step sequential approach set forth in
the regulations and found that Rodriguez had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since the alleged onset date and that he had severe impairments of affective
mood disorder with psychosis and anxiety disorder (steps one and two). At step
three, the ALJ found that Rodriguez did not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed
impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
The ALJ assessed Rodriguez’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”)
(defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 as “the most you can still do despite your
limitations”), to determine if he could perform his past relevant work (step four).
The ALJ concluded that Rodriguez had the RFC to perform a full range of work at
all exertional levels and limited him to simple, routine, and repetitive tasks, but not
at production rate pace; only occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers,
and the public; and no tasks involving the safety and welfare of others. The ALJ
found that Rodriguez’s allegations were inconsistent with his mild objective
medical findings, his daily activities, and the opinions of the state agency
10
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 11 of 22
psychological consultants. The ALJ considered the treatment records of the
doctors and explained that she did not give great weight to Dr. Danger’s opinion
because Rodriguez’s medical examinations did not reveal he was as limited as Dr.
Danger opined. The ALJ gave weight to the opinions of Drs. Meyer and Grubbs,
finding their opinions consistent with Rodriguez’s medical evidence. After
assessing the RFC, the ALJ utilized the testimony of the VE to determine that
Rodriguez could still perform his past work despite his impairments. Hence, the
ALJ concluded that Rodriguez was not disabled as defined in the Social Security
Act from his alleged onset date through the date of the decision.
Rodriguez requested review of the ALJ’s decision, but the Appeals Council
denied his request. Subsequently, Rodriguez filed a complaint in federal district
court, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. Rodriguez moved
for summary judgment, arguing that the ALJ improperly assessed the medical
opinions, that the ALJ failed to evaluate properly his paragraph B criteria and
assess his RFC, and that the ALJ improperly assessed his subjective symptoms.
The Commissioner opposed the motion and moved for summary judgment.
In its R&R, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny
Rodriguez’s motion for summary judgment and grant the Commissioner’s motion
for summary judgment. The magistrate judge concluded that substantial evidence
supported the ALJ’s evaluation of the opinion evidence in the record, and it
11
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 12 of 22
supported the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Danger’s opinion because he was a
consultative physician and his opinion was not entitled to the same deference as a
treating physician’s opinion. The magistrate judge found that the ALJ did not err
in affording great weight to Drs. Meyer’s and Grubbs’s opinions because they were
consistent with Rodriguez’s treatment records. The magistrate judge also
concluded that the ALJ’s paragraph B criteria findings and RFC determination
were supported by substantial evidence, in part, because the ALJ relied on
Rodriguez’s treatment notes. The magistrate judge lastly concluded that the ALJ’s
evaluation of Rodriguez’s subjective complaints was supported by substantial
evidence because the ALJ relied on Rodriguez’s treatment notes to find that his
description of his symptoms was not consistent with the medical evidence.
Rodriguez objected to the R&R, reiterating his arguments from his motion
for summary judgment. He also objected on the basis that the ALJ should have
accorded more deference to Dr. Danger’s opinion. The district court overruled
both objections, adopted the R&R, granted the Commissioner’s motion for
summary judgment, and denied Rodriguez’s motion for summary judgment.
Rodriguez filed a timely appeal.
III.
In Social Security appeals, we review the Commissioner’s decision for
substantial evidence and its application of legal principles de novo. Moore v.
12
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 13 of 22
Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). “Under the substantial-evidence
standard, a court looks to an existing administrative record and asks whether it
contains ‘sufficien[t] evidence’ to support the agency’s factual determinations.”
Biestek v. Berryhill, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019). Substantial
evidence requires more than a scintilla of evidence and is such relevant evidence as
a reasonable person would accept as sufficient to support a conclusion. Winschel
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). “A preponderance
of the evidence is not required.” Hunter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 808 F.3d
818, 822 (11th Cir. 2015). “A court may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the
evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the [Commissioner].” Id. (quoting
Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004)). Thus, so long as
the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, the court will
defer to the decision, even if the evidence may preponderate against it. Crawford
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158–59 (11th Cir. 2004). The substantial
evidence threshold “is not high” and defers to the presiding ALJ, who heard
testimony and reviewed the medical evidence. Biestek v. Berryhill, ___ U.S. at
___, 139 S. Ct. at 1157.
IV.
A. Whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of opinion
evidence from Rodriguez’s medical record
13
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 14 of 22
On appeal, Rodriguez argues that the ALJ failed to articulate the weight she
accorded to Drs. Mattia’s and Antoine’s opinions, accorded inadequate weight to
Dr. Danger’s opinion, and accorded too much weight to Drs. Meyer’s and
Grubbs’s opinions. Specifically, Rodriguez contends that the ALJ did not accord
any weight to the opinions of his treating physicians, and this court cannot conduct
a meaningful review because the ALJ did not state clearly the weight, if any,
accorded to their opinions. Rodriguez also claims that the ALJ did not provide
substantial evidence to support her decision to give Dr. Danger’s opinion only
partial weight, and the ALJ failed to explain how the evidence was inconsistent
with his opinions. Furthermore, Rodriguez argues that the ALJ did not provide any
examples of how Drs. Meyer’s and Grubbs’s opinions were more consistent with
the treatment records than Dr. Danger’s opinions. Thus, Rodriguez asserts that the
ALJ committed reversible error.
The Commissioner responds that the ALJ fully considered the medical
opinions in the record and properly explained the weight she gave to each opinion.
The ALJ relied on the treatment notes of Drs. Mattia and Antoine to determine that
Rodriguez could perform work within his RFC. Although Rodriguez challenges
the ALJ’s consideration of these treatment notes, he does not point to an actual
opinion by these doctors that was inconsistent with the ALJ’s RFC finding. The
Commissioner further contends that the ALJ properly considered Dr. Danger’s
14
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 15 of 22
opinion and gave it partial weight because he was a non-treating physician and his
opined limitations were not supported by Rodriguez’s medical examinations.
Additionally, the Commissioner claims that the ALJ properly gave weight to Drs.
Meyer’s and Grubbs’s opinions because their opinions were consistent with the
medical evidence. Thus, the Commissioner asserts that the record in its entirety
supports the ALJ’s decision.
In evaluating an individual’s eligibility for SSI benefits, the Commissioner
considers medical opinions from acceptable medical sources, including licensed
physicians and licensed psychologists. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a) (2012).1 Medical
opinions are “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments
about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [his]
symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [he] can still do despite impairment(s),
and [his] physical or mental restrictions.” Id. at §§404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2)
(2012). In determining an individual’s eligibility for DIB, the Commissioner
considers the medical opinions and evidence in the record and generally gives
more weight to an opinion from a treating source because the treating source is
“likely to be the medical professional[] most able to provide a detailed,
longitudinal picture” of the individual’s medical impairment. Id. at §
1
We cite to the relevant year’s rules that were in effect at the time of the ALJ’s decision and
before the 2017 amendments.
15
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 16 of 22
404.1527(c)(2) (2012). Indeed, if the Commissioner finds a treating source’s
opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment is “well-supported by
medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not
inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, the Commissioner
will give the opinion “controlling weight.” Id.
On review, an ALJ is not required to refer to every piece of evidence in her
decision. See Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005).
Nevertheless, the ALJ must clearly articulate reasons for giving less weight to a
treating physician’s opinion, and the failure to do so is reversible error, unless the
correct application of the regulations would not contradict the ALJ’s ultimate
findings. See Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726, 728 (11th Cir. 1983). “We will not
second guess the ALJ about the weight the treating physician’s opinion deserves so
long as he articulates a specific justification for it.” Hunter, 808 F.3d at 823.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s evaluation of the opinion evidence in Rodriguez’s medical
record. Drs. Mattia’s and Antoine’s treatment notes constituted medical opinions
because they recorded the nature and severity of Rodriguez’s impairments, and his
symptoms, diagnosis, and prognosis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2).
Because the ALJ failed to articulate the weight she assigned to their opinions, she
arguably erred in this respect; however, any error was harmless. The physicians’
16
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 17 of 22
findings did not contradict the ALJ’s conclusion that Rodriguez was not disabled.
Their treatment notes indicated that Rodriguez had fair judgment, insight, and
logical thought process, and that he was responding well to treatment. In addition,
their treatment notes did not provide any findings as to possible work-related
limitations that Rodriguez might encounter, but rather support the ALJ’s finding
that Rodriguez was able to perform simple, routine tasks and engage in structured
interactions with others. Significantly, Rodriguez does not identify any of Drs.
Mattia’s and Antoine’s opinions that are inconsistent with the ALJ’s finding.
We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the weight that the ALJ
accorded to Dr. Danger’s opinion. As a consultative physician, Dr. Danger was
not entitled to the same deference that an ALJ would accord to a treating physician.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(4); § 404.1527(c)(2). Some of Rodriguez’s treatment
notes undercut the severity of the limitations that Dr. Danger described and explain
the ALJ’s decision to give partial weight to Dr. Danger’s opinion. Indeed, the ALJ
relied on those treatment notes to determine that Rodriguez’s limitations were not
as severe as Dr. Danger opined and to adjust his range of work to exclude working
at production rate pace or performing tasks involving the safety and welfare of
others.
We also conclude that the ALJ did not err in according Drs. Meyer’s and
Grubbs’s opinions great weight. The ALJ’s determination was consistent with
17
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 18 of 22
Rodriguez’s treatment notes because those notes revealed that he had fair judgment
and insight, logical thought process, and was responding well to his treatment.
Drs. Mattia, Antoine, and Danger also noted the same in their treatment notes.
Additionally, Drs. Meyer’s and Grubbs’s opinions were consistent with
Rodriguez’s treatment notes that indicate he was not limited to the severity that he
described. Accordingly, based on the record, we affirm the district court’s order in
this respect.
B. Whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s paragraph B criteria
ratings and evaluation of Rodriguez’s RFC
On appeal, Rodriguez argues that substantial evidence does not support the
ALJ’s finding regarding his RFC at step four because the ALJ’s rationale was
entirely inconsistent with Dr. Danger’s opinions about his RFC. Rodriguez also
challenges the ALJ’s reliance on Drs. Meyer’s and Grubbs’s opinions because they
did not examine him, and he argues that because the ALJ’s determination
regarding his paragraph B ratings is inaccurate, the ALJ’s RFC assessment is
invariably flawed as well.
The Commissioner responds that the ALJ fully evaluated Rodriguez’s
condition using the PRTF, and the ALJ supported her ratings when she discussed
Rodriguez’s daily activities, which did not support greater restrictions/limitations.
The Commissioner also posits that Rodriguez’s medical records support the ALJ’s
18
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 19 of 22
ratings, and, importantly, Rodriguez does not identify what limitations were
missing from his RFC. Thus, because the ALJ considered the entire record and
provided substantial evidence to support her assessment of Rodriguez’s RFC, the
Commissioner urges this court to affirm as to this issue.
Social Security regulations outline a five-step, sequential evaluation process
to determine whether an individual is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).
The ALJ must evaluate whether (1) the individual engaged in substantial gainful
activity; (2) the individual has a severe impairment; (3) the severe impairment
meets or equals an impairment in the Listing of Impairments; (4) the individual has
the RFC to perform past relevant work; and (5) in light of the individual’s RFC,
age, education, and work experience, there are other jobs the individual can
perform. Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1237 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing
regulations). If the ALJ determines that the individual is not disabled at any step
of the evaluation process, the inquiry ends. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4),
416.920(a)(4).
The RFC is “that which an individual is still able to do despite the
limitations caused by his or her impairments.” Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1238. The
ALJ makes this determination by considering the individual’s ability to lift weight,
sit, stand, push, pull, etc. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). The individual’s residual
functional capacity is then used to determine his or her capability for performing
19
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 20 of 22
various designated levels of work, such as sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and
very heavy. See id. at § 404.1567. The ALJ considers all the record evidence in
making the determination of the individual’s RFC. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1238.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s findings regarding Rodriguez’s paragraph B criteria and his
RFC at step four. The medical evidence showed that Rodriguez could care for
himself, could prepare simple meals and perform housework, venture out of his
home alone, and handle money. The medical evidence also noted that Rodriguez
was consistently oriented to all spheres during his mental status examinations.
Rodriguez did not report side effects from his medications, and Drs. Mattia,
Antoine, and Danger noted that he was responding well to his treatment. As to the
RFC, the ALJ discussed the treatment notes, noted that Rodriguez had not been
hospitalized for his mental disorder, and that his daily activities reflected that he
could function independently. The ALJ specifically accounted for the mild
limitations that Rodriguez presented by limiting his RFC to exclude working at
production rate pace or performing tasks involving the safety and welfare of others.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s order as to this
issue.
C. Whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of
Rodriguez’s subjective allegations
20
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 21 of 22
Rodriguez asserts on appeal that the ALJ failed to assess properly his alleged
symptoms because his description of his symptoms was consistent with the
medical evidence. The Commissioner responds that the ALJ properly applied the
standard for reviewing Rodriguez’s subjective complaints and that Rodriguez’s
statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects
of his symptoms were inconsistent with the medical evidence. The Commissioner
posits that the ALJ articulated explicit, adequate reasons for her findings, and that
Rodriguez fails to cite evidence from the medical record that allegedly supports his
allegations. In sum, the Commissioner contends that the ALJ properly considered
the entire record and provided substantial evidence to support her evaluation of
Rodriguez’s subjective allegations.
“In order to establish a disability based on testimony of pain and other
symptoms, the claimant must satisfy two parts of a three-part test showing: (1)
evidence of an underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical
evidence confirming the severity of the alleged pain; or (b) that the objectively
determined medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the
claimed pain. Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002); see also
20 C.F.R. § 416.929(a). “If the ALJ discredits subjective testimony, he must
articulate explicit and adequate reasons for doing so.” Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1226.
“Failure to articulate the reasons for discrediting subjective testimony requires, as a
21
USCA11 Case: 20-11390 Date Filed: 12/02/2020 Page: 22 of 22
matter of law, that the testimony be accepted as true.” Id. Additionally,
“credibility determinations are the province of the ALJ, and [a court] will not
disturb a clearly articulated credibility finding supported by substantial evidence.”
Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780, 782 (11th Cir. 2014).
Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the ALJ’s determination
that Rodriguez’s symptoms were not as severe as he alleged is supported by
substantial evidence. Rodriguez’s treatment notes indicate that he had fair
judgment and insight, logical thought process, and was responding well to his
treatment. Moreover, the treatment notes undercut his description of his symptoms
that he attested to during the hearing before the ALJ. In addition, his former
roommate stated that Rodriguez was able to function independently, with only
minor limitations. Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
ALJ’s evaluation of Rodriguez’s subjective symptoms, and we affirm the district
court’s order on this issue as well.
We conclude from the record that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
determination that Rodriguez is not disabled. Accordingly, based on the
aforementioned reasons, we affirm the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s R&R granting summary judgment to the Commissioner on
Rodriguez’s claims for SSI benefits and DIB.
AFFIRMED.
22