Wilson v. Barnhart

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 10, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 04-30873 Clerk
Summary Calendar
JACQUELYN F. WILSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:03-CV-2922-D
--------------------
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jacquelyn F. Wilson appeals the district court’s judgment
affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s decision to
terminate her disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner’s
decision was based upon a determination under 42 U.S.C. § 423(f)
that Wilson had undergone medical improvement.
Wilson argues that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
erred in concluding that there was substantial evidence of
medical improvement, that the ALJ failed to state why he did not
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIRCUIT
RULE 47.5.4.
No. 04-30873
-2-
find her credible, that the ALJ failed to give proper weight to
her treating physician’s medical opinion, that the ALJ did not
accurately and fully develop the administrative record, that the
ALJ did not consider the combined effect of her exertional and
nonexertional impairments on her residual functional capacity and
the existence of jobs in the economy, and that the ALJ failed to
consider her advanced age of 55 years.
In a benefits termination proceeding, the Commissioner bears
the burden of proof and may terminate benefits if substantial
evidence demonstrates (1) that the claimant has undergone medical
improvement related to her ability to do work, and (2) that the
claimant is currently able to engage in substantial gainful
activity. Griego v. Sullivan, 940 F.2d 942, 943-44 (5th Cir.
1991). The Commissioner’s decision that the claimant is no
longer disabled will be affirmed so long as the decision is
supported by substantial evidence. Carey v. Apfel, 230 F.3d 131,
135 (5th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence is evidence that is
relevant and sufficient for a “reasonable mind [to] accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402
U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
Here, substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s
finding of medical improvement and the determination that Wilson
is able to engage in substantial gainful activity. Griego, 940
F.2d at 943-44. Specifically, Dr. Ulrich found that Wilson was
No. 04-30873
-3-
goal-directed, had no indication of psychosis, and had a fair-to-
good memory. Dr. Ulrich diagnosed Wilson with major depressive
disorder, but noted that this condition was treatable with
medication. Dr. Ulrich opined that Wilson could hold a job and
would benefit from having her attention directed elsewhere.
In addition, Dr. Nitsche found that Wilson was alert, had a
cooperative attitude and good attention, and was well-oriented.
Dr. Nitsche determined that Wilson’s delayed recall memory and
remote memory were good, her thought content was normal, and she
could follow commands. Dr. Nitsche’s physical examination
indicated that all of Wilson’s major body systems and her
functional assessment were normal. Dr. Nitsche found that Wilson
suffered from obesity, chronic headaches, intermittent lumbar
strain, and a history of anxiety and depression. Dr. Nitsche
concluded that Wilson’s medical problems might make it difficult
for her to do heavy physical work. That conclusion, however,
does not preclude a determination that Wilson has undergone
medical improvement or that she can work in a different capacity.
The ALJ provided adequate reasons for finding Wilson’s
testimony lacked credibility. If the uncontroverted medical
evidence shows a basis for the claimant’s complaints of pain, the
ALJ’s unfavorable credibility determination will not be upheld
“unless the ALJ weights the objective medical evidence and
assigns articulated reasons for discrediting the claimant’s
No. 04-30873
-4-
subjective complaints of pain.” Anderson v. Sullivan, 887 F.2d
630, 633 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation and citation
omitted). The ALJ must thoroughly discuss the objective medical
evidence and the nonmedical evidence to resolve any
inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole and to give a logical
explanation of the claimant’s capacity to work. Id. Here, the
ALJ found that Wilson’s medical records contradicted her claim of
continued disability. The ALJ noted that Wilson sought mental
health treatment only sporadically; that she had voiced no
complaints during the relevant time period, except with respect
to an inability to sleep; that her mental condition was treated
with medication; and that Dr. Ulrich opined she could hold a job.
Thus, the ALJ provided adequate reasons for his credibility
assessment.
Wilson’s complaint that the ALJ did not adequately develop
the record is based on a purported disparity in the evidence
discussed in the ALJ’s decision and the evidence in the record.
The ALJ owes a duty to a claimant to develop the record fully and
fairly to ensure that his decision is an informed decision based
on sufficient facts. Kane v. Heckler, 731 F.2d 1216, 1219 (5th
Cir. 1984). The ALJ’s decision will be affirmed unless the
claimant shows (1) that the ALJ failed to fulfill his duty to
adequately develop the record and (2) that the claimant was
prejudiced thereby. Id. at 1220. Here, Wilson has not identified
No. 04-30873
-5-
the alleged disparity. Even if there is a disparity, Wilson has
not shown that she was prejudiced. Wilson complains about the
ALJ’s failure to consider her letter requesting a hearing, but
that failure could not prejudice Wilson because she received a
hearing.
Substantial evidence indicates that Wilson can engage in
substantial gainful activity. Although the record shows that
Wilson still has a severe mental impairment, it also shows that
she can understand, remember, and carry out a variety of
technical, complex, or detailed tasks. Considering the evidence
as a whole, the evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that
Wilson can perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the
national or state economy.
Finally, the ALJ properly considered the combination of
Wilson’s impairments. Even if the ALJ had considered Wilson to
be a person of advanced age, that fact would not have led him to
find that she was still disabled because he did not find that her
residual functional capacity was limited to sedentary or light
work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(d)(4).
Wilson has shown no error in the district court’s judgment.
Accordingly, the court AFFIRMS the judgment.
AFFIRMED.