Thomas Atha, Jr. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Case: 14-15395 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15395
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cv-03549-MHH
THOMAS ATHA, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(June 26, 2015)
Before HULL, MARTIN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-15395 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 2 of 10
Thomas Windle Atha, Jr. appeals the district court’s order affirming the
Social Security Administration’s denial of his application for supplemental security
income (“SSI”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). The administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) found that Atha suffered from several severe impairments—status post
fractures to his left knee and leg, mild degenerative disc disease, depression,
alcohol dependence, a history of substance abuse, and low average to borderline
intellectual functioning—that made him unable to perform his past relevant work
installing vinyl siding, hanging sheet rock, and assembling trailers. The ALJ,
however, also found that Atha was not disabled because there were a significant
number of other, sedentary jobs he could still perform despite his impairments. On
appeal, Atha argues that: (1) substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s
finding that there were a significant number of jobs he could perform; and (2) the
Appeals Council did not adequately review his new evidence when it denied his
request for review. After review, we affirm. 1
I. THE FIVE-STEP EVALUATION
A claimant for SSI benefits must prove he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.912;
Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). Under the five-step
1
Atha’s application for benefits originally sought both supplemental security income and
disability insurance benefits. Before the district court, however, Atha amended his disability
onset date to October 13, 2008, and he acknowledged that this change rendered him ineligible for
disability benefits.] The district court adopted the new onset date, and thus we review only the
denial of Atha’s application for supplemental security income.
2
Case: 14-15395 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 3 of 10
sequential evaluation used to determine whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ
considers: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if
not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments;
(3) if so, whether these impairments meet or equal an impairment listed in the
Listing of Impairments; (4) if not, whether the claimant has the residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) to perform his past relevant work; and (5) if not, whether, in
light of his age, education, and work experience, the claimant can perform other
work that exists in “significant numbers in the national economy.” See 20 C.F.R.
§§ 416.920(a)(4), (c)-(g), 416.960(c)(2); see also Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011).
The claimant bears the burden to prove the first four steps. If the claimant
does so, the burden shifts temporarily to the Commissioner to prove the fifth step.
20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v) & (g); see also Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228
(11th Cir. 1999).
At the fifth step, the Commissioner can carry her burden through the
testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”). Jones, 190 F.3d at 1229; see also 20
C.F.R. §§ 416.912(f), 416.966(e). If the Commissioner presents evidence that
other work exists in significant numbers in the national economy, “to be
considered disabled, the claimant must then prove that he is unable to perform the
3
Case: 14-15395 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 4 of 10
jobs that the Commissioner lists.” Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 n.2
(11th Cir. 2001).
II. SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS IN THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
Further, under the statutory provisions governing SSI benefits, a person is
not disabled unless he cannot “engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work
which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the
immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him,
or whether he would be hired if he applied for work.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).
These provisions make clear that “‘work which exists in the national economy’
means work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such
individual lives or in several regions of the country.” Id. (emphasis added).
Likewise, the implementing regulations state that work exists in the national
economy when the work “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.
§ 416.966(a). The regulations clarify that “[i]t does not matter whether . . . [w]ork
exists in the immediate area in which [the claimant] live[s],” whether a “specific
job vacancy exists,” or if the claimant “would be hired if [he] applied for work.”
Id. Thus, a claimant is considered “not disabled” if he “remain[s] unemployed
because of . . . [la]ck of work in [his] local area.” Id. § 416.966(c). On the other
hand, “[i]solated jobs that exist only in very limited numbers in relatively few
4
Case: 14-15395 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 5 of 10
locations outside of the region where [the claimant] live[s] are not considered work
which exists in the national economy.” Id. § 416.966(b).
This Court has never held that a minimum numerical count of jobs must be
identified in order to constitute work that “exists in significant numbers” under the
statute and regulations. We have concluded, however, that the “appropriate focus
under the regulation is the national economy,” not the local economy in which the
claimant lives. Allen v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 600, 603 (11th Cir. 1987).
In Allen v. Bowen, this Court upheld the ALJ’s finding that work existed in
significant numbers were the VE testified that there were 174 small appliance
repairman positions in the area of Georgia where the claimant lived. The VE also
testified that there were 1,600 general appliance repair jobs in the entire state, and
80,000 such jobs nationally, of which “[a] considerable number . . . [were] in the
small appliance field.” Id. at 602. This Court stressed in Allen that, because an
ALJ’s finding as to the existence of a sufficient quantity of jobs is a finding of fact
reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, we could not reweigh the
evidence or “substitute our judgment for that of the Secretary.” Id. In light of the
VE’s testimony, this Court concluded in Allen that the Secretary had “clearly
achieved” his burden by substantial evidence. Id. The claimant’s additional
evidence submitted to the Appeals Council was immaterial because it tended only
5
Case: 14-15395 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 6 of 10
to disprove the existence of jobs in the claimant’s local economy, when the proper
focus was on “the existence of such jobs on a national scale.” Id. at 603.
III. ATHA’S APPEAL OF ALJ’S FIFTH-STEP FINDING
On appeal, Atha does not challenge the ALJ’s findings as to the first four
steps. Atha argues only that the ALJ erred in relying on the VE’s testimony to
find, at the fifth step, that a significant number of jobs existed in the national
economy that Atha could perform despite his RFC, age, education, and work
experience. 2 In particular, Atha does not dispute the VE’s job numbers or contend
that these are jobs he could not perform. He argues only that the number of jobs to
which the VE testified does not constitute a “significant number” and thus he is
disabled.3
Here, the ALJ’s fact finding that work existed in significant numbers in the
national economy was based on the VE’s testimony that there were 440 jobs in
Alabama and 23,800 jobs nationally that Atha could perform. In particular, the VE
testified that a person with Atha’s RFC, age, education, and work experience could
2
We review the Commissioner’s findings of fact to determine whether they are supported
by substantial evidence and the Commissioner’s legal conclusions de novo. Ingram v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007). “Substantial evidence is less than a
preponderance, but rather such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005).
3
To the extent Atha’s brief stated in passing that part-time jobs should not be counted at
step five, he failed to preserve this issue for appeal because he did not meaningfully develop this
argument in his appeal briefs. See Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 530 (11th Cir. 2013)
(explaining that a party fails to adequately brief an issue when he does not “plainly and
prominently” raise it, “for instance by devot[ing] a discrete section of his argument to those
claims” (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original)).
6
Case: 14-15395 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 7 of 10
perform work as a surveillance system monitor, of which there were approximately
100 such jobs in Alabama and 7,600 nationally; as an inspector/sorter, of which
there were approximately 240 such jobs in Alabama or 13,000 nationally; or as a
machine tender, of which there were approximately 100 jobs in Alabama and 3,200
nationally.
Given that the proper focus is on the national economy, the ALJ’s finding
that there were a significant number of jobs Atha could perform, and thus Atha was
not disabled, is supported by substantial evidence.
IV. APPEALS COUNCIL’S CONSIDERATION OF NEW EVIDENCE
Atha argues the Appeals Council “failed to adequately consider” additional
medical records he submitted along with his request for review. In denying Atha’s
request for review, the Appeals Council stated that it had considered both Atha’s
reasons for disagreeing with the ALJ’s decision and the additional evidence Atha
included with his request, and that it “found that this information does not provide
a basis for changing the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.” Citing Epps v.
Harris, 624 F.2d 1267 (5th Cir. 1980), 4 Atha maintains that the Appeals Council
was required to “show in its written denial [of the request for review] that it has
adequately evaluated the new evidence.”
4
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this
Court adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions prior to October 1, 1981.
7
Case: 14-15395 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 8 of 10
In Mitchell v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, this Court
recently concluded that the Appeals Council is not required to provide a detailed
explanation of a claimant’s new evidence when it denies a petition for review.
Mitchell, 771 F.3d 780, 783-85 (11th Cir. 2014). As in Atha’s case, the Appeals
Council in Mitchell denied review, stating simply that it had considered the
additional evidence but “the information did not provide a basis for changing the
ALJ’s decision.” See id. at 782. This Court determined that the Appeals Council’s
explanation was sufficient, emphasizing that the record did not provide a “basis for
doubting the Appeals Council’s statement that it considered Mitchell’s additional
evidence.” Id. at 783-84. Moreover, we have clarified that Mitchell’s holding is
not limited “to situations where the new evidence was ‘cumulative’ or ‘not
chronologically relevant.’” Parks ex rel. D.P. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 783
F.3d 847, 853 (11th Cir. 2015).
Thus, under Mitchell, the Appeals Council was not required to discuss any
further Atha’s new evidence or provide a more detailed explanation of its reasons
for denying review. Atha’s reliance on Epps is misplaced. As we explained in
Mitchell, Epps involved an Appeals Council’s affirming the ALJ’s decision, and
thus Epps does not apply when, as here, the Appeals Council denies a petition for
review. Mitchell, 771 F.3d at 783; see also Parks, 783 F.3d at 853.
8
Case: 14-15395 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 9 of 10
We also reject Atha’s argument that in light of the additional medical
records he submitted, the Appeals Council should have granted his petition for
review. The Appeals Council must grant a petition for review only if it finds that
the ALJ’s “action, findings, or conclusion is contrary to the weight of the
evidence,” including the new and material evidence. Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1261 (11th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470(b).
Evidence is material if “there is a reasonable possibility that the new evidence
would change the administrative outcome.” Hyde v. Bowen, 823 F.2d 456, 459
(11th Cir. 1987). On appeal, when the Appeals Council denies review based on
new evidence, our review considers whether the claimant’s new evidence “renders
the denial of benefits erroneous.” Ingram, 496 F.3d 1262.
Here, even considering the additional medical records Atha submitted,
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s denial of Atha’s SSI application. For
example, Atha’s new mental health records indicated that Atha’s GAF score
increased from 48 to 50 to as high as 60 as he continued his abstinence from drugs
and mostly stayed sober. This evidence supports, rather than undermines, the
ALJ’s finding that Atha’s past substance abuse was a material contributing factor
to his disability, and that, in the absence of substance abuse, Atha had the RFC to
perform some kinds of sedentary work. Although the new records noted Atha’s
depression, none indicated that he was severely impaired as a result of his
9
Case: 14-15395 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 10 of 10
depression. Nor do any of the new records regarding Atha’s physical impairments
indicate that he is more limited than reflected in the ALJ’s RFC assessment, and, in
fact, the records show that he continued to work in vinyl siding as late as
December 2009. In short, we cannot say that Atha’s new evidence rendered the
Commissioner’s denial of SSI benefits erroneous.
AFFIRMED.
10