Sarah C. Scott vs Commissionier of Social Security , 428 F. App'x 925 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-13765 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JUNE 3, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-00102-MP-AK
SARAH C. SCOTT,
Plaintiff-Appellant
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(June 3, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sarah Scott appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s
denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income benefits. Scott argues the hypothetical questions posed by the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to the vocational expert (VE) regarding her
ability to work failed to address the full extent of her mental impairments or
limitations. Specifically, Scott contends the ALJ’s hypothetical failed to include
her moderate inability to: maintain attention and concentration for extended
periods, complete a normal workday or workweek without interruptions from
psychologically based symptoms, and perform at a consistent pace without an
unreasonable number and length of rest periods. After review, we affirm the
ALJ’s decision.1
The Social Security regulations establish a five-step, sequential evaluation
process to determine disability for both SSI and disability insurance benefits
claims. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The last two steps are relevant to
this appeal: whether the claimant has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to
perform her past relevant work, and whether, in light of the claimant’s RFC, age,
1
“We review the [ALJ’s] decision to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence
and based on proper legal standards.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158
(11th Cir. 2004). “This limited review precludes deciding the facts anew, making credibility
determinations, or re-weighing the evidence.” Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th
Cir. 2005).
2
education, and work experience, there are other jobs the claimant can perform. Id.If a claimant proves she can no longer perform her past relevant work, at the final
step, “the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show the existence of other jobs in
the national economy which, given the claimant’s impairments, the claimant can
perform.” Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999) (quotation
omitted). An ALJ may rely solely on the testimony of a VE in determining
whether there are other jobs the claimant can perform; however, “the ALJ must
pose a hypothetical question which comprises all of the claimant’s impairments.”
Id. at 1229–30.
The record here demonstrates that the ALJ posed hypothetical questions
which encompassed all of Scott’s impairments. The ALJ asked the VE to assume
“moderate limitations in maintaining concentration, persistence, and pace” in
addition to the physical limitations discussed in the initial hypothetical. The
specific limitations noted in Scott’s argument are a subset of “sustained
concentration and persistence” concerns in the Mental RFC Assessment. The
VE’s testimony constituted substantial evidence that Scott was not disabled.
AFFIRMED.
3