Silva v. Kijakazi

Case: 22-51045 Document: 00516767943 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-51045
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ May 30, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Lydia Elida Silva, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:21-CV-287
______________________________
Before Clement, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Lydia Silva appeals a denial of Social Security disability benefits. We
AFFIRM.
I
Five years ago, Lydia Silva applied for disability benefits. Silva
allegedly suffers from depression, obesity, spinal impairments, and more.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51045 Document: 00516767943 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2023
No. 22-51045
The Social Security Administration, however, denied her claim. So, Silva
requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). But, the ALJ
denied Silva’s claim, too, finding that—although she offered medical
evidence of severe ailments—she didn’t have a qualifying disability. The
district court, upon recommendation of a magistrate judge, affirmed. Now,
on appeal, Silva raises two arguments. First, she maintains that the ALJ failed
to properly review the medical opinion of Dr. Thomas Pfeil. Second, Silva
argues that the ALJ failed to fully consider whether her ailments met any of
the impairments under Listing 1.04 of 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1.
II
When reviewing a “final decision [of the Commissioner],” we ask
whether it’s “supported by substantial evidence” and if “the Commissioner
used the proper legal standards to evaluate the evidence.” Whitehead v.
Colvin, 820 F.3d 776, 779 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (quotations and
citation omitted). A decision is unsupported by substantial evidence when
“no credible evidentiary choices or medical findings support the decision.”
Id. (quotations and citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is more than a
scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Villa v.
Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021–22 (5th Cir. 1990) (quotations and citation
omitted). We are, at the end of the day, “exceedingly deferential” on review.
Taylor v. Astrue, 706 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).
Both of Silva’s arguments fail on appeal. First, she contends that the
ALJ failed to fully consider the medical testimony of Dr. Thomas Pfeil. Silva
doesn’t deny that the ALJ reviewed Dr. Pfeil’s opinions, or that she found
some “portions [of it] not persuasive.” Instead, she argues that the ALJ
didn’t properly “articulate how” the doctor’s opinions weren’t supported by
the record. But, the ALJ clearly explained the shortcomings of Dr. Pfeil’s
2
Case: 22-51045 Document: 00516767943 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/30/2023
No. 22-51045
testimony. Specifically, the ALJ noted that although “some of the [doctor’s]
opinion appear[] supported and consistent” with the record, other parts
weren’t due to the lack of a “documented need for [an] assistive device” and
plain evidence that Silva “had work activity in late 2018.” Because those
facts directly contradicted some of Dr. Pfeil’s determinations, the ALJ
turned to other evidence in the record, including two different medical
opinions.
As we’ve noted time and again, an “ALJ is not always required to do
an exhaustive point-by-point discussion” of the evidence she reviews. Audler
v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 2007). And, even if the ALJ didn’t
address every aspect of Dr. Pfeil’s opinions, that “does not necessarily mean
that [s]he failed to consider [them].” Hammond v. Barnhart, 124 F. App’x
847, 851 (5th Cir. 2005). Here, the ALJ explained that her findings came only
“[a]fter careful consideration of all the evidence . . . .” Because the ALJ
clearly grappled with Dr. Pfeil’s opinions, we won’t second guess her
decision on the matter. See Garcia v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 700, 704 (5th Cir.
2018) (“We will not re-weigh the evidence . . . [or] substitute our judgment
for the Commissioner’s . . . .”) (quotations and citation omitted)).
Second, Silva contends that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate
whether her ailments met any of the listed impairments under Listing 1.04 of
20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. The ALJ plainly found that Silva’s
impairments didn’t “meet[] or medically equal[] . . . one of the listed
impairments” under Listing 1.04. Silva doesn’t deny that. Instead, she
argues that the ALJ didn’t “include any meaningful discussion” of how
Listing 1.04 wasn’t met and that the ALJ only focused on the “inability to
ambulate” part of the listing.
Both arguments, however, fail. The ALJ found—in an opinion
detailing the medical evidence in the record—that Silva didn’t prove up an
3
Case: 22-51045 Document: 00516767943 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/30/2023
No. 22-51045
“inability to ambulate effectively” or offer any “evidence of atrophy or other
serious weakness[] as described in listing 1.04.” Consequently, the ALJ’s
decision was clearly based on a full reading of both Listing 1.04 and the
evidence in the record. At the end of the day, Silva was required to prove up
any impairment under Listing 1.04. See Audler, 501 F.3d at 449 (“To
demonstrate the required loss of function for a musculoskeletal impairment
[under Listing 1.04], [the petitioner] must demonstrate either an ‘inability to
ambulate effectively on a sustained basis . . . , or the inability to perform fine
and gross movements effectively on a sustained basis.’”); Selders v. Sullivan,
914 F.2d 614, 619 (5th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (“The claimant must provide
medical findings that support each of the criteria for the equivalent
impairment determination.”). She failed to do so. We AFFIRM.
4