MARTIN

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Vona Martin (Claimant) appeals to the District Court from a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner) denying her application for disability insurance benefits. Doc.

1. Claimant argues that the Administrative Law Judge (the ALJ) erred by failing to properly weigh the opinion of Kyle Moyles, M.D. (Dr. Moyles). Doc. 26 at 22-30. The Commissioner disagrees. Doc. 26 at 30-37. For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED.

I. The ALJ’s Decision On February 10, 2015, Claimant filed an application for disability insurance benefits alleging a disability onset date of December 11, 2014. R. 15; 67. Claimant’s date last insured for disability benefits was June 30, 2016. R.

17. The claim was denied initially and upon review. R. 1; 67-76; 77-87. Following an administrative hearing on May 30, 2018 (R. 34-66), on June 14, 2018, the ALJ issued his decision finding Claimant not disabled. R. 12-26. In the decision, the ALJ found that Claimant had the following severe impairment: status post right elbow fracture. R 17.1 The ALJ found that Claimant had an RFC to perform less than a full range of medium work as defined by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(c).² R.

20. Specifically, the ALJ found as follows: After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that, through the date last insured, the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform medium work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c) except with frequent overhead reaching with her right dominant arm and frequent grasping and fingering but no feeling with her right dominant hand.

Id. The ALJ posed a hypothetical question to the VE that was consistent with the foregoing RFC determination, and the VE testified that Claimant was capable of performing Claimant’s past work as generally performed and jobs in the national economy. R. 60-61.

Therefore, the ALJ found that Claimant was not disabled between the alleged onset date and the date last insured. R.

26.

On March 21, 2019, the Appeals Council denied Claimant’s request for review. R.

1.

Thus, the ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner’s final decision. This appeal followed.

II. Standard of Review

“In Social Security appeals, [the court] must determine whether the Commissioner’s decision is ‘supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.’” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F. 3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). The

Where the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, the court will affirm, even if the reviewer would have reached a contrary result as finder of fact, and even if the reviewer finds that the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner’s decision. Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F. 2d 580, 584 n.3 (11th Cir. 1991); Barnes v. Sullivan, 932 F. 2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1991).

The court must view the evidence as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the decision. Foote, 67 F. 3d at 1560. The court “‘may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the [Commissioner].’” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F. 3d 1232, 1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F. 2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983)).

III. Discussion

Claimant raises a single assignment of error: the ALJ failed to properly weigh the opinion of Claimant’s treating physician, Dr. Moyles. Doc. 26 at 22-30. Specifically, Claimant argues that the ALJ failed to provide good cause reasons “based on adequate rationale” and supported by substantial evidence for giving little weight to Dr. Moyles’s opinion. See id. 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 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 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).

The weighing of treating, examining, and non-examining physicians’ opinions is an integral part of steps four and five of the sequential evaluation process. The ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give each medical opinion, including:¹) whether the physician has examined the claimant;²) the length, nature, and extent of the physician’s relationship with the claimant;³) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion;⁴) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and 5) the physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c). “[T]he ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F. 3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F. 2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987)). “In the absence of such a statement, it is impossible for a reviewing court to determine whether the ultimate decision on the merits of the claim is rational and supported by substantial evidence.” Id. (quoting Cowart v. Schwieker, 662 F. 2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981)).

A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. Winschel, 631 F. 3d at 1179; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence). “Good cause exists when the: (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Winschel, 631 F. 3d at 1179 (quotation marks omitted).

Here, Dr. Moyles Completed a form for Claimant entitled “Manipulative Limitations Medical Source Statement” on September 22, 2017. R. 727-28 (the Opinion).³ In the Opinion, Dr. Moyles opined to limitations more severe than those found in the RFC. Compare R. 727-28,

with R.

20. In his decision, the ALJ stated as follows with respect to Dr. Moyles: I have also considered the medical source statements from Dr. Blackstone, Dr. Moyles, and Dr. Weiss, who offered their opinions in the context of the adversarial workers' compensation claim system (Exhibits 1lF, 12F, and 30F). The focus in a workers' compensation claim is on the claimant's past work or some modification thereof but the criteria used to determine disability under the Social Security Act is different from workers' compensation laws. 20 CFR 404.1504 allow outright rejection of conclusions of disability that are based on criteria other than Social Security Regulations.

Therefore, a determination by a workers compensation doctor is not relevant when evaluating a Title II or Title XVI claim for benefits. I am aware that the workers' compensation system is adversarial. Workers' compensation cases look only at the claimant's ability to return to the job being performed at the time of the injury.

Nonetheless, in considering these opinions, I give them little weight for several reasons. Most importantly, these opinions were authored after the date last insured and the record does not support the opinions. . . As to Dr. Moyles' medical source statement dated September 22, 2017 (well after the date last insured) opining that she could only use her right hand and arm approximately 10% of the day (Exhibit 12F). I also give this opinion little weight because it is inconsistent with the other evidence in the case and is outside the period of issue. . . Overall, nerve conduction studies in July 2016 indicated an injury to the cervical spine as well as the possibility of brachial plexus (Exhibit l0F and 22F).

However, there was no evidence that any of her symptoms were coming from the elbow itself, but more proximally. In terms of the right upper extremity, she did not require any further medical treatment. MRI of the cervical spine in August 2016 showed disc bulging from C2-C³ through C6-C7 but was otherwise a negative study of the cervical spine and cervical cord (Exhibits l0F and 22F).

Furthermore, the record indicated that she only needed assistance with driving but she had no complaints with feeding, getting from bed to chair, getting to toilet, getting dressed, bathing, using the phone, taking medications, preparing meals, handling her affairs/checkbook, doing laundry and housework, shopping for groceries, doing

In addition, she testified that she used to take her father to all of his cancer treatments prior to his death. For such reasons, I give little to the opinions of Dr. Blackstone, Dr. Moyles, and Dr. Weiss. R. 23-24 (emphasis added).

Claimant appears to argue, primarily, that the ALJ erred in giving Dr. Moyles's Opinion little weight and by providing insufficient reasons therefor. Doc. 26 at 22-30. Upon review, the Court finds that the ALJ articulated appropriate reasons for discounting Dr. Moyles's Opinion. See D’Andrea v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 389 F. App’x 944, 948 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (rejecting argument that ALJ failed to accord proper weight to treating physician’s opinion “because the ALJ articulated at least one specific reason for disregarding the opinion and the record supports it”).

The ALJ explained that Dr. Moyles issued his Opinion in the “context of the adversarial workers' compensation claim system,” and that “a determination by a workers compensation doctor is not relevant when evaluating a Title II or Title XVI claim for benefits” and further that Dr. Moyles’s Opinion is “inconsistent with the other evidence in the case and is outside the period of issue. . . .” R. 23-24.

In sum, the ALJ explained that he gave Dr. Moyles’s Opinion little weight because: (1) the Opinion was issued in a workers’ compensation context; (2) the Opinion was issued after the date last insured; and (3) the Opinion is inconsistent with and unsupported by the record. Specifically as to the latter, the ALJ cited several medical records he found inconsistent with Dr. Moyles’s Opinion and explained that those records provide no evidence that any of Claimant’s symptoms came specifically from her elbow; that Claimant did not require any further medical treatment for her right upper extremity; and that barring disc bulging, Claimant had a “negative study of the cervical spine and cervical cord.” R. 24 (citing R. 621-52; R. 1111-132).

In addition, the ALJ cited to portions of the record and Claimant’s testimony that indicated Claimant “only needed assistance with driving but she had no complaints with feeding, getting from bed to chair, getting to toilet, getting dressed, bathing, using the phone, taking medications, preparing meals, handling her affairs/checkbook, doing laundry and housework, shopping for groceries, doing handyman work, climbing a flight of stairs, getting to places beyond walking distances, and taking her father to doctor appointments.” R. 24 (citing 836-955; hearing testimony).

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ articulated a good cause reason, supported by substantial evidence, in support of his determination to assign Dr. Moyles’s Opinion little weight, and thus that the Commissioner’s final decision is due to be affirmed. See 389 F. App’x at 948 (rejecting argument that ALJ failed to accord proper weight to treating physician’s opinion “because the ALJ articulated at least one specific reason for disregarding the opinion and the record supports it.”).

Claimant’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. Indeed, Claimant’s arguments are overwhelmingly unclear and often perfunctorily made. As an initial matter, Claimant makes a perfunctory argument that the ALJ erred in giving more weight to “the state agency doctors” than to Dr. Moyles’s Opinion; however, Claimant neither identifies nor cites to the opinions of these “state agency doctors,” nor does Claimant provide any actual argument on this point. See Doc. 26 at 29-30. Accordingly, to the extent Claimant attempts to raise any argument related to alleged error based on the ALJ’s assigning more weight to the opinions of “state agency doctors” than to Dr. Moyles’s Opinion, such argument is waived.⁴

Additionally, Claimant appears to argue that the fact that Dr. Moyles’s Opinion was issued after the date last insured does not constitute a good cause reason for discounting Dr. Moyles’s Opinion. Claimant argues that the ALJ “ignored the fact that Dr. Moyles specified that the limitations were in effect back to the date of the injury” and that Dr. Moyles provided other opinions—authored between the alleged onset date and the date last insured—in this case. Id. at