SHOEMAKER

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Claimant’s appeal of an administrative decision denying his application for child disability benefits and supplemental security income. In a decision dated July 16, 2021, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Claimant had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from April¹, 2018, the alleged onset date, through the date of the decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g)). R. 23–24.

Having considered the parties’ briefing and being otherwise fully advised, the Court concludes, for the reasons set forth herein, that the Commissioner’s decision is due to be

AFFIRMED.

I. Issues on Appeal

Claimant makes the following arguments on appeal:¹) The ALJ did not properly consider Claimant’s mental impairments, including his bipolar disorder. Doc. 18 at 15. 2) The ALJ did not properly consider Dr. Kaplan’s opinions. Doc. 18 at 19, 24.

II. Standard of Review

As the Eleventh Circuit has stated: In Social Security appeals, we must determine whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards. Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. We may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the [Commissioner]. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F. 3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations and quotations omitted). “With respect to the Commissioner’s legal conclusions, however, our review is de novo.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 285 F. 3d 1329, 1330 (11th Cir. 2002).

III. Discussion

At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC) and ability to perform past relevant work. Phillips, 357 F. 3d at 1238. “The residual functional capacity is an assessment, based upon all of the relevant evidence of a claimant’s remaining ability to do work despite his impairments.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F. 3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997).

The ALJ is responsible for determining the claimant’s RFC.²⁰ C.F.R. §§ 404.1546(c); 416.946(c).

In doing so, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including, but not limited to, the medical opinions of the treating, examining, and non-examining medical sources.²⁰ C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), (3); 416.945(a)(1), (3); see also Rosario v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 877 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1265 (M.D. Fla. 2012).1 The consideration of medical source opinions is an integral part of steps four and five of the sequential evaluation process.

After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: the claimant is capable of performing simple, routine, and repetitive tasks in a work environment free of fast-paced production requirements, involving only simple work related The Social Security Administration revised its regulations regarding the consideration of medical evidence—with those revisions applicable to all claims filed after March 27, 2017. See 82 FR 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819 (Jan. 18, 2017).

Because Claimant filed her claim after March²², 2017,2 20 C.F.R. § 404.150c and²⁰ C.F.R. § 416.920c are applicable in this case. Under these provisions, an ALJ must apply the same factors in the consideration of the opinions from all medical sources and administrative medial findings, rather than affording specific evidentiary weight to any particular provider’s opinions.²⁰ C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(a); 416.920c(a).

The ALJ must consider:¹) supportability;²) consistency;³) relationship with the claimant;³ 4) specialization; and⁵) “other factors that tend to support or contradict a medical opinion or prior administrative medical finding.”²⁰ C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(1)–(5); 416.920c(c)(1)–(5).

Supportability and consistency constitute the most important factors in any evaluation, and the ALJ must explain the consideration of those two factors.²⁰ C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(b)(2); 416.920c(b)(2).

Supportability relates to the extent to which a medical source has articulated support for the medical source’s own opinion, while consistency relates to the relationship between a medical source’s opinion and other evidence within the record.⁴ In other words, the ALJ’s

decisions, with few if any changes in the workplace, and no more than occasional interpersonal interaction with the public, coworkers, and supervisors.

R. 19.

404.1520c(b)(2); 416.920c(b)(2); see also Freyhagen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:18- CV-1108-J-MCR, 2019 WL 4686800, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2019) (“The new regulations are not inconsistent with Eleventh Circuit precedent holding that ‘the ALJ may reject any medical opinion if the evidence supports a contrary finding.”) (quoting Wainwright v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 2007 WL 708971, *2 (11th Cir. Mar. 9, 2017) (per curiam) and citing Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F. 2d 834, 835 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (same)).

Where a claimant is diagnosed with bipolar disorder, the Eleventh Circuit has noted that “the ALJ must consider the episodic nature of bipolar disorder.” Samuels v. Acting Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 959 F. 3d 1042, 1046 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Schink v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 935 F. 3d

1245, 1267 (11th Cir. 2019)). a. Claimant’s Mental Impairments The ALJ stated the following with respect to Claimant’s mental impairments: The claimant primarily alleges disability due to the combined effects of his mental impairments including a depressive disorder, a bipolar disorder, an anxiety disorder, attention deficit/hyperactive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and an intermittent explosive disorder. Specifically, the record has noted symptoms resulting from these impairments to include at times impaired insight and judgment, variable memory and concentration, hyperactivity, distractibility, impulsivity, tangential cognition, as well as an anxious and depressed mood and affect. (Exhibits 5F 10, 11, 20; 6F 2; 12F 3, 7; 13F 4, 10; 14F 2; 16F 3, 5; 20F 13, 15, 17; 21F 3;

opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s) is with the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical sources the more persuasive the medical opinions or prior administrative medical finding(s) will be.”²⁰ C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(1)–(2); 416.920c(c)(1)–(2). 22F 3; 23F 2).

However, during the period of adjudication, the claimant exhibited far more unremarkable mental examination findings including a normal mood and affect, intact memory, average intelligence, good insight and judgment, cooperativeness, pleasantness, as well as linear, logical, and organized thought processes, and normal thought content. (Exhibits 5F 2, 5, 11, 16, 17, 20; 6F 2; 12F 3, 5, 7; 13F 4, 7, 10; 14F 2; 16F 3, 5, 8, 11; 19F 2, 7; 20F 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 27; 21F 3, 7; 22F 1, 3, 5; 23F 2). Treatment for these impairments was conservative and largely consisted of therapy and medications, which the claimant testified helped control his symptoms. (Hearing Testimony).

. . .

The claimant’s mental impairments result in some degree of functional limitations, but not to the extent alleged in light of his testimony and mental examination results. (SSR 16-3p). To begin, the claimant alleges that his impairments limit his ability to sustain employment.

However, this allegation is inconsistent with the claimant’s reported retained activities of daily living including the ability to perform household chores, go out on dates, and maintain personal relationships. (Hearing Testimony).

Further, the allegation is inconsistent with the longitudinal evidence of record including a normal mood and affect, intact memory, average intelligence, good insight and judgment, cooperativeness, pleasantness, as well as linear, logical, and organized thought processes, and normal thought content. (Exhibits 5F 2, 5, 11, 16, 17, 20; 6F 2; 12F 3, 5, 7; 13F 4, 7, 10; 14F 2; 16F 3, 5, 8, 11; 19F 2, 7; 20F 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 27; 21F 3, 7; 22F 1, 3, 5; 23F 2).

These inconsistencies suggest that the claimant’s symptoms are not as limiting as alleged. (SSR 16-3p).

R. 20–21.

Thus, the ALJ noted that Claimant experiences “good days”⁵ and “bad days”⁶ that are characteristic of a person who has bipolar disorder. See, e.g., Schink v. Comm'r of Soc.

R.