RIVERA MISLA

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Claimant’s appeal of an administrative decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. In a decision dated May²², 2019, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Claimant had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from December 12, 2015, the alleged disability onset date, through March 31, 2017, the date last insured. R. 17-31.

Having considered the parties’ briefing, 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 argument on appeal: the ALJ did not apply the correct legal standards to the opinions of Dr. Prickett or Dr. Mendelson. See Doc. 22 at 12.

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

Claimant argues that the ALJ erred in discounting the opinions of consultative psychological examiners Drs. Prickett and Mendelson. Doc. 22 at 12-16. The Court rejects this argument. At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s RFC and ability to perform past relevant work. Phillips, 357 F. 3d at 1238. “The residual functional capacity is an assessment, based upon all 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. § 416.946(c). In doing so, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including, but not limited to, the medical opinions of treating, examining, and non-examining medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)(1), (3); see also Rosario v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 877 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1265 (M.D. Fla. 2012). 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 his claim after March 27, 2017,1 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c and 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c are applicable in this case. Under

Thus, “[t]he more relevant the objective medical evidence and supporting explanations presented by a medical source are to support his or her medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s),” and “[t]he more consistent a medical 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). 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. 2 This factor combines consideration of the following issues: length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examinations, purpose of the treatment relationship, extent of the treatment relationship, and examining relationship. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(3)(i)–(v); 416.920c(c)(3)(i)– (v).

Mar. 9, 2007) (per curiam) and citing Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F. 2d 834, 835 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam)(same)).

In addressing the opinions of Dr. Prickett and Dr. Mendelson, the ALJ summarized those opinions and then stated as follows: I find the State agency psychological consultants’ opinions very persuasive, they are supported by the evidence listed in the opinions, such as normal mental status findings, showing that the claimant is “cooperative, well groomed, tense, normal speech, anxious, appropriate affect, no psychosis, goal directed, no preoccupations, not suicidal, normal cognitive/memory functions” (Exhibit B3A/7).

The State agency psychological consultants’ opinions are also consistent with the overall evidence of record, which show normal memory, goal oriented thought processes, normal cognition, cooperative behavior, and normal insight and judgment (Exhibit B3F/3, 4, and 6), as well as the claimant’s own admissions of normal daily activities (Exhibit B5E).

R.