Carol Barchard v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2015 )

Case: 14-15656 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15656
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cv-01530-PAZ
CAROL BARCHARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(October 14, 2015)
Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-15656 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 2 of 6
Carol Barchard appeals the district court’s order, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g), upholding the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s
(Commissioner) denial of her application for a period of disability and disability
insurance benefits. Barchard argues the district court erred in affirming the
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) determination that she can perform work in the
national economy with very little, if any, vocational adjustments. However, we
hold that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding. Accordingly, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
After the Commissioner denied Barchard’s application for a period of
disability and disability insurance benefits, Barchard requested and received a
hearing before an ALJ. The ALJ found that, “considering [Barchard’s] age,
education and transferable work skills,” she is “not disabled.” Barchard appealed.
The Appeals Council remanded the case, asserting the ALJ did not adequately
address the transferability of Barchard’s vocational skills.
On remand, a vocational expert (VE) testified that Barchard can work as an
“information clerk” without any vocational adjustments. The VE based this
conclusion on his specific finding that Barchard acquired skills in her past
employment that are transferable to an information clerk. Furthermore, the VE
stated that 1,100 information clerk positions exist in Barchard’s local area, 7,300
exist statewide, and 97,000 exist nationally. The VE provided this testimony in
2
Case: 14-15656 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 3 of 6
response to a hypothetical question about the ability of a person who has all
Barchard’s impairments to perform work. In reaching his findings, the VE relied
on his expertise in the field of vocational capacity, Barchard’s testimony regarding
her impairments and prior work experience, a review of the administrative record,
and the applicable regulatory definitions.
The ALJ again ruled that Barchard is “not disabled,” finding, inter alia, she
can perform work in the national economy with very little, if any, vocational
adjustments. The ALJ stated that he relied on the VE’s testimony in reaching this
conclusion. Barchard then requested review of the decision by the district court.
The district court affirmed. On appeal, Barchard solely challenges the district
court’s determination that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s ruling on her
ability to perform work.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“We review de novo the district court’s decision on whether substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s determination.” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219,
1221 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla
and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158
(11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). “We may not
decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of
3
Case: 14-15656 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 4 of 6
the [Commissioner].” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n. 8 (11th Cir.
2004) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the ALJ’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence, we must defer to the decision “even
if the proof preponderates against it.” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210
(11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (internal quotation mark omitted). Nevertheless, this
Court will not affirm “simply because some rationale might have supported the
ALJ’s conclusion.” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th
Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). The ALJ must “state with at least
some measure of clarity the grounds for his decision.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted).
An ALJ may rely on the testimony of a VE when determining whether a
claimant is able to engage in work in the national economy. See Jones v. Apfel,
190 F.3d 1224, 1230 (11th Cir. 1999); McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617, 619–20
(11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (holding substantial evidence supported ALJ finding
regarding claimant’s ability to work where a VE considered all of claimant’s
impairments and testified that claimant had transferable skills which allowed him
to perform work). At the same time, “[i]n order for a VE’s testimony to constitute
substantial evidence, the ALJ must pose a hypothetical question [to the VE] that
accounts for all of the claimant’s impairments.” Jones, 190 F.3d at 1229.
III. DISCUSSION
4
Case: 14-15656 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 5 of 6
In considering a claim for Social Security disability benefits, an ALJ must
determine whether the claimant is able to perform work that exists in the national
economy. 1 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 404.1560(c)(2). “[W]ork exists in
the national economy when it exists in significant numbers either in the region
where [the claimant] live[s] or in several other regions of the country.” 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1566(a). When the claimant is age 60 or older and her impairments limit her
to light work, only jobs requiring “very little, if any, vocational adjustment in
terms of tools, work processes, work settings, or the industry” may be considered.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1568(d)(4), 416.968(d)(4).
Barchard claims the ALJ erred in ruling she is able to perform work that
complies with this standard. However, in response to a hypothetical question
comprising all Barchard’s impairments, the VE testified that Barchard has the
ability to work as an information clerk and does not require vocational adjustments
to perform the duties of the position. Barchard’s relevant medical records and her
own description of her past work experience supported the VE’s testimony. 2
1
An ALJ engages in a five-step process to determine whether a claimant is entitled to
social security benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The fifth step requires an analysis of the
claimant’s ability to perform work that exists in the national economy. The first four steps are
not at issue here. Therefore, our discussion is limited to the fifth step.
2
On appeal, Barchard argues that she is incapable of working as an information clerk
because the position requires a greater “reasoning level” than her previous employment.
However, this argument was never made below. “As a general principle, this court will not
address an argument that has not been raised in the district court.” Stewart v. Dep’t of Health &
Human Servs., 26 F.3d 115, 115 (11th Cir. 1994). While exceptions to this rule exist, none apply
in this case.
5
Case: 14-15656 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 6 of 6
Moreover, Barchard does not dispute that a significant number of information clerk
jobs exist in the national economy. Accordingly, the ALJ’s finding that Barchard
can perform work in the national economy with very little, if any, vocational
adjustments is supported by substantial evidence. See McSwain, 814 F.2d at 619–
20.
AFFIRMED.
6