COLEMAN

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

OPINION AND ORDER2

I. Status

Debra Coleman (“Plaintiff”) is appealing the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA(’s)”) final decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). Plaintiff’s alleged inability to work is the result of type¹ diabetes, anemia, nerve damage/neuropathy, depression, kidney disease, blood pressure issues, and visual limitations. See Transcript of

April 17, 2018 and July², 2018, alleging in both applications a disability onset date of January², 2017.3 Tr. at 159-60, 161-64. The applications were denied initially, Tr. at 64-71, 72, 85, 86-88, and upon reconsideration, Tr. at 73-83, 84,

92, 93-98. On November 22, 2019, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing, during which he heard testimony from Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, and a vocational expert (“VE”). See Tr. at 34-63. Plaintiff was forty-seven years old at the time of the hearing. Tr. at 38, 40. On December 13, 2019, the ALJ issued a Decision finding Plaintiff not disabled through the date of the Decision. See Tr. at 17-28. Thereafter, Plaintiff sought review of the Decision by the Appeals

Council. See Tr. at 4-5 (Appeals Council exhibit list and order), 258-61 (representative memorandum). On July 23, 2020, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, Tr. at 1-3, thereby making the ALJ’s Decision the final decision of the Commissioner. On September 24, 2020, Plaintiff

On appeal, Plaintiff argues the ALJ did not properly evaluate the opinions of her treating endocrinologist, Vita Anksh, M.D., and her treating oncologist, Douglas Heldreth, M.D. See Joint Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 24; “Joint Memo”), filed August², 2021, at 13-16. Responding, Defendant contends the ALJ properly considered the opinions and found them unpersuasive. Id. at 23-28. After a thorough review of the entire record and consideration of the parties’ Joint Memo, the undersigned finds that the Commissioner’s final decision is due to be affirmed.

II. The ALJ’s Decision

When determining whether an individual is disabled,⁴ an ALJ must follow the five-step sequential inquiry set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (“Regulations”), determining as appropriate whether the claimant (1) is currently employed or engaging in substantial gainful activity; (2) has a severe impairment; (3) has an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one listed in the Regulations; (4) can perform past

F. 4th 1094, 1101-02 (11th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted); Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F. 3d 1232, 1237 (11th Cir. 2004). The claimant bears the burden of persuasion through step four, and at step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987).

Here, the ALJ followed the five-step sequential inquiry. See Tr. at 19-28. At step one, the ALJ determined Plaintiff “has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January², 2017, the alleged onset date.” Tr. at 19 (emphasis and citation omitted). At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff “has the following severe impairments: diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy,

chronic kidney disease with anemia, and diabetic retinopathy/macular edema.” Tr. at 19 (emphasis and citation omitted). At step three, the ALJ ascertained that Plaintiff “does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 [C.F.R.] Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.” Tr. at 21 (emphasis and citation omitted). The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the following residual functional capacity (“RFC”): [Plaintiff can] perform less than the full range of sedentary work as defined in 20 [C.F.R. §] 404.1567(a) such that [she] can only occasionally climb stairs and ramps, balance, stoop, kneel, and crawl. [Plaintiff] can never climb ladders and scaffolds and crawl. [Plaintiff] can only frequently handle and finger. [Plaintiff] must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold and heat and all exposure to moving mechanical parts and unprotected heights.

Tr. at 21 (emphasis omitted). At step four, the ALJ relied on the testimony of the VE and found that Plaintiff “is unable to perform any past relevant work” as a “Loan Officer,” an “Account Executive,” and a “Customer Service [Representative] (financial).” Tr. at 27 (emphasis and citation omitted). At the fifth and final step of the sequential inquiry, after considering Plaintiff’s age (“44 years old . . . on the alleged disability onset date”), education (“at least a high school education”),

work experience, and RFC, the ALJ again relied on the VE’s testimony and found that “there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that [Plaintiff] can perform,” Tr. at 27 (emphasis and citation omitted), such as “Order Clerk (food and beverage),” “Final Assembler,” and

“Semiconductor Bonder,” Tr. at 28. The ALJ concluded Plaintiff “has not been under a disability . . . from January², 2017, through the date of th[e D]ecision.” Tr. at 28 (emphasis and citation omitted).

III. Standard of Review

This Court reviews the Commissioner’s final decision as to disability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Although no deference is given to the ALJ’s conclusions of law, findings of fact “are conclusive if . . . supported by ‘substantial evidence.’” Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F. 3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Falge v. Apfel, 150 F. 3d 1320, 1322 (11th Cir. 1998)). “Substantial evidence is something ‘more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance.’” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F. 3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hale v. Bowen, 831 F. 2d 1007, 1011 (11th Cir. 1987)). The substantial evidence standard is met when there is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Falge, 150 F. 3d at 1322 (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)); see also Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019); Samuels v. Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 959 F. 3d 1042, 1045 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). It is not for this Court to reweigh the evidence; rather, the entire record is reviewed to determine whether “the decision reached is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.” Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F. 2d 1143, 1145 (11th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). The decision reached by the Commissioner must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence—even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings. Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F. 3d 1155, 1158-59 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).

IV. Discussion

As explained earlier, Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s handling of the opinions rendered by treating specialists Dr. Anksh and Dr. Heldreth. The SSA revised the rules regarding the evaluation of medical evidence for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. See Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844, 5844 (January 18,

2017); see also 82 Fed. Reg. 15,132 (March 27, 2017) (amending and correcting the final Rules published at 82 Fed. Reg.⁵,844). Because Plaintiff filed her DIB applications after that date, the undersigned applies the revised rules and Regulations.

Under the new rules and Regulations, an ALJ need not “defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) . . . , including those from [the claimant’s] medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a).⁶ The following factors are relevant in determining the weight to be given to a medical opinion: (1) “[s]upportability”; (2) “[c]onsistency”; (3) “[r]elationship with the claimant”; (4) “[s]pecialization”; and (5) other factors, such as “evidence showing a medical source has familiarity with the other

When a medical source provides multiple opinions, the ALJ is also not required to articulate how he or she evaluated each medical opinion individually. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(b)(1), 416.920c(b)(1). Instead, the ALJ must “articulate how [he or she] considered the medical opinions . . . from that medical source together in a single analysis using the factors listed [above], as appropriate.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(1). Here, at issue are a Physical Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaire (“PRFC”) filled out by Dr. Anksh on April 16, 2019, Tr. at 348-51, and a Medical

Statement Regarding Chronic Anemia for Social Security Disability Claim (“MS re Chronic Anemia”) filled out by Dr. Heldreth on November 14, 2019, Tr. at 557. See Joint Memo at 13. In the PRFC, among other things, Dr. Anksh opined that due to physical and mental impairments, Plaintiff is incapable of even low stress jobs; she can walk at most one-to two-blocks without rest or pain; she can sit twenty minutes and stand fifteen minutes at a time; she can sit or stand/walk less than two hours per day; she must walk around every five minutes for four minutes at a time; she needs to shift positions every hour; she can never lift any amount; and she can never twist, stoop, crouch, or climb ladders and can rarely climb stairs. Tr. at 348-51. In the MS re Chronic Anemia, Dr. Heldreth opined in pertinent part that Plaintiff can stand or sit for thirty minutes at a time; she cannot work at all; she can lift ten pounds occasionally; and cannot lift anything frequently. Tr. at 557.

The ALJ discussed in detail Plaintiff’s medical records, Tr. at 22-25, before addressing the opinions of Dr. Anksh on the PRFC form and Dr. Heldreth on the MS re Chronic Anemia, Tr. at 26.7 As to the PRFC form, the ALJ wrote in pertinent part as follows: The opinion . . . is not persuasive as this opinion is inconsistent with clinical observations and [Plaintiff’s] activities. As noted [previously,] repeated observation showed intact motor function, sensory function, reflexes, gait, and coordination. [Plaintiff] never sought or received care from a mental health provider, and psychological observation showed a normal mood, affect, thought processes, thought content, psychomotor activity, abstract reasoning, memory,

2. The Clerk is further directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on January⁶, 2022.

wren Koo clk

JAMES R. KLINDT

United States Magistrate Judge kaw Copies to: Counsel of Record