MARTINEZ

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION¹

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Claimant’s appeal of an administrative decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. In a decision dated July 22, 2019, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Claimant had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from February 17, 2017, the alleged disability onset date, through July 22, 2019, the date of the ALJ’s decision. R. 15-23. Having considered the parties’ memoranda 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 two arguments on appeal:¹) The ALJ failed to adequately support her rejection of Dr. Perdomo’s opinion. See Doc. 20 at 12.

16.

2) The ALJ failed to support her analysis of Claimant’s subjective complaints with substantial evidence. See Doc. 20 at 22.

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

A. Dr. Perdomo’s Opinion Here, Claimant argues that the ALJ erred in discounting the opinion of consultative examiner, Dr. Perdomo. See Doc. 20 at 12-18. The Court rejects this argument. 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).2 The consideration of medical source opinions is an integral part of steps four and five of the sequential evaluation process. 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 March

22, 2017,3 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;⁴ 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).

After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds claimant has the RFC to perform light work (20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b)), except sit up to 25% of the workday; occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps and stairs, but no ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; avoid: constant pushing and pulling with the upper extremities, constant bilateral overhead reaching, work at unprotected heights, work with dangerous machinery and dangerous tools, constant vibration, and constant temperatures over 90ºF and under 40ºF; work tasks should be simple, learned in 30 days, with occasional superficial interaction with the general public.

R. 19.

analysis is directed to whether the medical source’s opinion is supported by the source’s own records and consistent with the other evidence of record—familiar concepts within the framework of social security litigation. The ALJ may, but is not required to, explain how the ALJ considered the remaining three factors (relationship with claimant, specialization, and “other factors”).²⁰ C.F.R. §§ 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)).

Here, in addressing Dr. Perdomo’s opinion, the ALJ stated: Consultative examiner Dr. Perdomo opined that claimant can stand and walk 2-3 [hours], sit 3-4 hours and lift⁵ pounds, but avoid repetitive bending, stooping, or crouching. (Exhibit B8F/2) This opinion is not persuasive. It is based on a one time limited exam. It is inconsistent with claimant’s other exams noted hereinabove. (See B12F, B13F) Claimant has required only conservative treatment. The doctor’s

R. 20-21.

The Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Perdomo’s opinion is “not persuasive.” The ALJ first noted that Dr. Perdomo’s opinion was formed from a one-time, limited exam. R.

20. As a one time examiner, Dr. Perdomo’s opinion is not entitled to any particular deference. See Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F. 3d 1155, 1160 (11th Cir. 2004) (“The ALJ correctly found that, because Hartig examined Crawford on only one occasion, her opinion was not entitled to great weight.”); Mackie v. Astrue, 2008 WL 719210, at *11 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2008) (citing McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F. 2d 617, 619 (11th Cir. 1987)) (“a consultative examination, that is, a one-time examination by a physician who is not a treating physician, need not be given deference by the commissioner.”).

Additionally, the ALJ found Dr. Perdomo’s opinion to be inconsistent with Dr. Perdomo’s own exam findings. Id. For example, Dr. Perdomo opined that Claimant should avoid repetitive bending, stooping, or crouching. See R.

624.

However, the ALJ explained that Dr. Perdomo’s

findings reflected normal sensory and motor functioning, normal coordinate and station, no neurological gait deficits, negative Romberg testing, and full range of motion of the lower extremities. R. 20-21.

Thus, after considering Dr. Perdomo’s own exam findings—from a single, limited exam—the ALJ found Dr. Perdomo’s limitations to be unreasonable. R.

21.

Further, the ALJ explained that Dr. Perdomo’s opinion is inconsistent with the record evidence. R.

20. For example, Dr. Perdomo opined that Claimant can stand and walk for two to three hours, sit three to four hours, and lift five pounds. Id.

However, the ALJ noted that Claimant retained full strength, with no edema in her extremities. See R. 20 (citing R. 671, 790).

Additionally, the ALJ noted that Claimant was found to be in no acute distress, with no chest pain or shortness of breath. See R. 20 (citing R. 670-71, 735-36). And the ALJ noted that Claimant “has required only conservative treatment.” R.

20.

Consequently, the ALJ found that Dr. Perdomo’s opinion was inconsistent with the record evidence.

In sum, the ALJ found Dr. Perdomo’s opinion to be inconsistent Dr. Perdomo’s own exam findings and unsupported by the record evidence. Claimant’s arguments to the contrary essentially

ask the Court to reweigh the evidence, which is not this Court’s function.⁶ Winschel, 631 F. 3d at 1178. The ALJ’s findings as to Dr. Perdomo’s opinion are supported by substantial evidence, and thus the Court finds no reversible error. B. Analysis of Claimant’s Subjective Complaints Next, Claimant argues that the ALJ failed to support her analysis of Claimant’s subjective complaints with substantial evidence. See Doc. 20 at 22. The Court rejects this argument. An individual seeking disability benefits has the burden to prove she is disabled and unable to perform her past relevant work. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F. 3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). A claimant may establish “disability through his own testimony of pain or other subjective

However, the ALJ did consider this consultative examination report. See R. 20-21. Specifically, the ALJ states “[t]he December 2017 consultative exam by Alex Perdomo, M.D. found no difficulties ambulating, but she appeared to be in pain in the exam room; she needed help to move to the exam table.” R.