United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
Social
Security Appeal
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge
Before
the Court is Plaintiff George Wood's complaint for
judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for
disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). Because
the Appeals Council properly declined to review the new
records Plaintiff submitted, and because the ALJ's
residual function capacity (“RFC”) finding is
supported by substantial evidence, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner's
decision be AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff
protectively filed his application on December 9, 2011,
alleging an initial onset date of February 16, 2010. (R.
161-62). Plaintiff's application was denied initially and
on reconsideration, and Plaintiff requested a hearing before
the ALJ. (R. 82-84, 89-91). Following the hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied
Plaintiff's application on June 24, 2015. (R. 19-37).
Plaintiff requested that the Appeals Council review the
ALJ's decision and Plaintiff submitted additional
evidence for the Appeals Council to review. (R. 15-16,
568-585). The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request
to review the ALJ's opinion. (R. 1-7). Accordingly,
Plaintiff's claim is now ripe before this Court.
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
Judicial
review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
is limited to a determination of whether that decision is
supported by substantial evidence, as well as whether the
Commissioner applied the correct legal standards.
Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176,
1178 (11th Cir. 2011). “Substantial
evidence” is defined as “more than a scintilla,
” and as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Id. The Eleventh Circuit has explained that
reviewing courts may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the
evidence, or substitute their judgment for that of the
Commissioner. Id. Rather, if the Commissioner's
decision is supported by substantial evidence, that decision
must be affirmed even if the evidence preponderates against
it.
EVALUATION
OF DISABILITY
Social
Security claimants are “disabled” if they are
unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by
reason of any medically determinable physical or mental
impairment which can be expected to result in death or which
has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period
of not less than 12 months. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
The
Social Security Regulations outline a five-step sequential
evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is
disabled: “(1) whether the claimant is currently
engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the
claimant has a severe impairment or combination of
impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals the
severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of
impairments; (4) based on a residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) assessment, whether the claimant can
perform any of his or her past relevant work despite the
impairment; and (5) whether there are significant numbers of
jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform
given the claimant's RFC, age, education, and work
experience.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178
(11th Cir. 2011) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v); 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v)).
DISABILITY
EVALUATION IN THIS CASE
a.
Factual Background and Medical Evidence
Plaintiff
was born in 1952 and graduated from high school. (R. 19,
190). Plaintiff had worked as a press operator since 1975,
and continued to work, on a limited basis, as an operator at
the time of the hearing. (R. 25, 45). Plaintiff was examined
by Dr. Timothy Graves in March of 2009. Dr. Graves assessed
that Plaintiff suffered from diabetes, hypertension, and
joint pain. (R. 380). In July, Dr. Graves noted that
Plaintiff's diabetes was doing well and that his blood
sugar levels had improved. (R. 382). In November,
Plaintiff's diabetes and hypertension were both noted to
be controlled, but Plaintiff did complain of pain with his
toes. (R. 384).
Plaintiff
complained of chest pain and shortness of breath in February
of 2010, and underwent a coronary triple artery bypass
grafting. (R. 306, 386). Dr. Graves noted in May of 2010 that
Plaintiff was recovering well and that Plaintiff had no
complaints of chest pain or edema. (R. 386). In November of
2010, Plaintiff complained that he had episodes of rapid
heart rate and chest pain, although his diabetes and
hypertension was under control. (R. 390). Plaintiff reported
in January of 2011 that the palpitations were
“currently resolved.” (R. 393).
In
March of 2011, and throughout 2011, Plaintiff complained of
upper arm and shoulder pain, and in April of 2011, Dr. Graves
diagnosed Plaintiff with bursitis. (R. 395-98, 401-02).
Plaintiff still complained of shoulder pain in August of
2011, but Dr. Graves noted Plaintiff's cardiologist gave
Plaintiff a “great report” and that
Plaintiff's hyperlipidemia and hypertension were
“doing well.” (R. 401). In ...