Anthony Calvin v. Commissioner of Social Security , 437 F. App'x 370 ( 2011 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0349n.06
FILED
No. 10-5256
May 23, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY W. CALVIN, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
v. ) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) OPINION
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
BEFORE: COLE and STRANCH, Circuit Judges; and ZATKOFF, District Judge*
ZATKOFF, District Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Calvin seeks review of the district
court’s judgment affirming the decision of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), who denied
Calvin’s request for social security disability benefits. We AFFIRM.
This Court reviews the district court’s conclusion in a social security case de novo. Valley
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 427 F.3d 388, 390 (6th Cir. 2005). Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), our review
of the Commissioner’s decision is limited to determining whether the findings are supported by
substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied. We have carefully
reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, the applicable law, and the district court’s
order denying Calvin’s motion for judgment on the record and adopting the magistrate judge’s report
*
The Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff, United States District Judge for the Eastern District
of Michigan, sitting by designation.
No. 10-5256
Anthony Calvin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
and recommendation. We agree that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Calvin is
not disabled. Because the district court’s decision and the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation are well reasoned, we find no need to expand on the analysis.
Calvin also argues that the ALJ did not properly evaluate the credibility of Calvin’s
statements regarding his pain and symptoms pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and Social Security Ruling 96-7p describe a two-part process for
assessing the credibility of an individual’s statements about symptoms, including pain. First, the
ALJ must determine whether a claimant has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment
that can reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged; second, the ALJ must evaluate
the intensity, persistence, and functional limitations of those symptoms by considering objective
medical evidence and other evidence, including: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, duration,
frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the
type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate pain or other
symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6)
any measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning functional
limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Soc. Sec. Rul.
96-7p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 4, at *5-8 (1996). “[A]n ALJ’s findings based on the credibility of the
applicant are to be accorded great weight and deference, particularly since an ALJ is charged with
the duty of observing a witness’s demeanor and credibility. Nevertheless, an ALJ’s assessment of
a claimant’s credibility must be supported by substantial evidence.” Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
-2-
No. 10-5256
Anthony Calvin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 1997) (citing Villarreal v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 818 F.2d
461, 463 (6th Cir. 1987)).
With respect to Calvin’s credibility, the ALJ stated:
I have considered the claimant’s subjective complaints, including those regarding
pain, in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, Social Security Ruling 96-7p, and
applicable Sixth Circuit case law. I find the claimant and his sister fairly credible.
He does have degenerative lumbar and cervical disc disease with a history of cervical
laminectomy and no doubt does have some pain. He cannot perform his past work,
and he appears to equate that with disability. Of course, I must go one step further
and I find nothing in the objective record that would preclude a full range of light
work thus allowing for the performance of other work. . . . Considering the evidence
in its entirety, the Administrative Law Judge does not find the claimant’s complaints
persuasive to the extent alleged.
(Admin. R. at 17).
In considering the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, the ALJ considered Calvin’s daily
activities, which were inconsistent with his claim of being unable to perform light work activity. The
record includes evidence that Calvin provided sole care for his personal needs, provided sole
supervision of his 10 year-old daughter, provided transportation for himself and his daughter,
prepared meals, attended mass regularly, and frequented restaurants, movies, and ball games.
(Admin. R. at 200, 203, 237).
The ALJ also considered the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of Calvin’s pain and
other symptoms and precipitating and aggravating factors. The ALJ noted that Calvin’s medication
helped to relieve his pain, and this was confirmed by Dr. Lim’s treatment notes. (Admin. R. at 17,
229, 231, 233, 234, 236, 237, 240, 241). Calvin also stated that he did not have any side effects from
his medications. (Admin. R. at 331). Finally, the ALJ’s determination regarding Calvin’s
-3-
No. 10-5256
Anthony Calvin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
capabilities was supported by the assessments of Dr. Davis (Admin. R. at 157), Dr. Cowden (Admin.
R. at 186–91), Dr. Richard (Admin. R. at 193-96), and Dr. Pettigrew (Admin. R. at 200-04), whose
assessments of Calvin’s abilities are inconsistent with Calvin’s claims. In light of this, and in view
of the deference accorded to an ALJ’s credibility determinations regarding pain, the ALJ’s
determination that Calvin’s pain was limiting but not disabling is supported by substantial evidence
in the record as a whole.
Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Calvin’s motion for judgment on the
record for the reasons stated above and in the district court’s opinion.
-4-