Derek Saucier v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration , 552 F. App'x 926 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-12221 Date Filed: 01/15/2014 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12221
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cv-01665-KRS
DEREK SAUCIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 15, 2014)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-12221 Date Filed: 01/15/2014 Page: 2 of 9
Derek Saucier seeks review of the Social Security Administration’s denial of
his application for disability insurance benefits, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and
supplemental security income, 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). The administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) determined that Mr. Saucier suffered from several severe
impairments, noting his history of Tourette’s Syndrome, attention deficit-
hyperactivity disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and benzodiazepine
withdrawal syndrome. The ALJ further acknowledged that Mr. Saucier had
degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, depressive disorder, and
somatization disorder. Nonetheless, the ALJ determined that Mr. Saucier was not
disabled because these impairments did not meet or equal one of the listed
impairments in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00 et al. The district
court affirmed, and this appeal followed.
We review “de novo the district court’s decision on whether substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1221
(11th Cir. 2002). Thus, “the question is not whether substantial evidence supports
a finding made by the district court but whether substantial evidence supports a
finding made by the [ALJ].” Graham v. Bowen, 790 F.2d 1572, 1575 (11th Cir.
1986). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence
as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
2
Case: 13-12221 Date Filed: 01/15/2014 Page: 3 of 9
Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
On appeal, Mr. Saucier, through counsel, argues that the ALJ erred in
discounting Dr. Patrick Gorman’s somatization diagnosis and opinion that
Mr. Saucier had extreme functional limitations in satisfaction of Listing 12.07.
According to Mr. Saucier, had the ALJ properly credited Dr. Gorman’s opinion,
the testimony of Jane Beougher, a vocational expert, would have established that
there was no work that Mr. Saucier could perform in the national economy. After
reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we hold that substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s determination that Mr. Saucier was not entitled to disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
In order to demonstrate the required level of severity for somatoform
disorders under Listing 12.07, the claimant must satisfy both subparagraphs to the
listing. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, Listing 12.07. As relevant here,
subparagraph (B) requires the disorder to result in at least two of the following: (1)
marked restriction of activities of daily living; (2) marked difficulties in
maintaining social functioning; (3) marked difficulties in maintaining
concentration, persistence, or pace; or (4) repeated episodes of decompensation,
each of an extended duration. Id. 1
1
A “marked” limitation means “more than moderate but less than extreme.” 20 C.F.R.
3
Case: 13-12221 Date Filed: 01/15/2014 Page: 4 of 9
Mr. Saucier argues that Dr. Gorman’s diagnosis of somatization disorder and
opinions regarding Mr. Saucier’s functional impairments conclusively established
that Mr. Saucier satisfied all the requirements of Listing 12.07. But a claimant
cannot meet the criteria of a listing based solely on a diagnosis. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1525(d). Instead, issues regarding whether the claimant is “disabled” or
“unable to work” are reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §
404.1527(d)(1). Although the Commissioner will “consider opinions from medical
sources on issues such as whether [the claimant’s] impairment(s) meets or equals
the requirements of any impairment(s) in the Listing of Impairments in appendix 1,
. . . the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the
Commissioner.” Id. § 404.1527(d)(2). Accordingly, the ALJ correctly declined to
“give any special significance” to Dr. Gorman’s opinion on these issues. Id. §
404.1527(d)(3).
Moreover, contrary to Mr. Saucier’s argument, the ALJ credited
Dr. Gorman’s diagnosis, finding that Mr. Saucier suffered from somatization
disorder. See D.E. 17 at 25.2 The ALJ, however, ultimately determined that Mr.
Saucier failed to demonstrate the required level of severity for somatoform
disorders under Listing 12.07. Id. at 26. In so doing, the ALJ considered, but
Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00(D).
2
Unless otherwise noted, all pagination refers to the page number assigned on PACER.
4
Case: 13-12221 Date Filed: 01/15/2014 Page: 5 of 9
rejected, Dr. Gorman’s opinion that Mr. Saucier suffered from extreme functional
impairments in satisfaction of the requirements of subparagraph (B) of Listing
12.07.
Mr. Saucier says that this was error because it failed to accord Dr. Gorman’s
opinion the substantial weight to which it was entitled “due to the frequency of
[Dr. Gorman’s] contact with Claimant.” Appellant’s Br. at 26. As Mr. Saucier
correctly points out, absent good cause, the ALJ must give the medical opinions of
treating physicians “substantial or considerable weight.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at
1179 (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Saucier’s argument, however, fails to
contend with the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Gorman did not qualify as a treating
physician. See D.E. 17 at 32. A treating source is a claimant’s own physician,
psychologist, or other acceptable medical source who provides, or has provided the
claimant with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing
treatment relationship with the claimant. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.902. Mr. Saucier
does not contest that he was referred to Dr. Gorman by his attorney, see D.E. 17-2
at 79, and the Social Security Administration does not “consider an acceptable
medical source to be [a] treating source if [the claimant’s] relationship with the
source is not based on . . . medical need for treatment or evaluation, but solely on
[the] need to obtain a report in support of [the] claim for disability.” 20 C.F.R. §
5
Case: 13-12221 Date Filed: 01/15/2014 Page: 6 of 9
404.1502 (“In such a case, we will consider the acceptable medical source to be a
nontreating source.”).
In any event, even assuming that Dr. Gorman was a treating source, the ALJ
had good cause to not give his opinion considerable weight. 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.” Phillips v.
Barnhardt, 357 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 2004). Here, Dr. Gorman’s opinions
were not only inconsistent with evidence concerning Mr. Saucier’s activities and
other medical opinions, but also Dr. Gorman’s own observations.
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Mr. Saucier had only
moderate restrictions in (1) activities of daily living; (2) maintaining social
functioning; and (3) concentration, persistence, or pace. For example, Mr. Saucier
indicated in his functional report that “he has no problems maintaining personal
care, preparing simple meals, doing laundry, using a riding lawn mower, and
managing finances.” D.E. 17 at 27. See also id. at 118-122. Dr. Pamela Green, a
state agency consultant, concluded that Mr. Saucier had mild restrictions in
activities of daily life, maintaining social functioning, and concentration,
persistence, or pace; she found no episodes of decompensation of extended
duration. See D.E. 17-2 at 43. Dr. Ada Ramirez, the consultative examining
6
Case: 13-12221 Date Filed: 01/15/2014 Page: 7 of 9
physician, noted that Mr. Saucier’s “verbal and communication skills were
adequate and his eye contact was fair”; although his “speech was soft and slow,” it
was “lucid and goal directed.” D.E. 17-2 at 22. And these observations were
consistent with the ALJ’s own observations of Mr. Saucier’s testimony at the
hearing. D.E. 17 at 27 (“Claimant’s testimony at the hearing was presented in a
very soft voice and was halting, but he responded to questions, answering them
relevantly and adequately.”). Finally, the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Gorman’s
opinion that Mr. Saucier experienced continual episodes of decompensation,
because there was no record evidence of ongoing mental health treatment or
extended periods of decompensation requiring supporting care or mental health
hospitalization. Thus, the ALJ correctly accorded little weight to Dr. Gorman’s
opinion that Mr. Saucier’s functional restrictions were extreme.
Furthermore, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to discount
Dr. Gorman’s opinions because they were inconsistent with Dr. Gorman’s own
observations. Following an examination of Mr. Saucier, Dr. Gorman observed that
(1) Mr. Saucier’s “speech was within normal limits for rate, rhythm, and volume”;
(2) his “attention and concentration appeared appropriate”; and (3) he “understood
all task questions and instructions and did not require repetition or clarification.”
D.E. 17-2 at 76. Moreover, Dr. Gorman noted that Mr. Saucier “displayed poor
effort on numerous tasks of response bias that were presented to him during [his
7
Case: 13-12221 Date Filed: 01/15/2014 Page: 8 of 9
neuropsychological] evaluation,” performing “worse than patients with severe
dementia who required hospitalization as well as young children.” Id. at 79. For
example, after testing on verbal memory functioning, Dr. Gorman noted that it was
“highly unlikely that [Mr. Saucier] would be able to obtain [his low test] score
without knowing the correct answer and purposely choosing the wrong one.” Id. at
78. “[G]iven [Mr. Saucier’s] poor effort on the tasks presented to him combined
with highly variable performance,” Dr. Gorman concluded that “the results
obtained on measures of intellectual functioning, executive function, attention and
concentration and learning and memory [were] likely an inaccurate underestimate
of [Mr. Saucier’s] current functioning.” Id. at 79. In light of these more detailed
findings, the ALJ properly declined to credit Dr. Gorman’s conclusory opinions
that Mr. Saucier suffered from extreme limitations in daily living, social
functioning, and concentration, persistence or pace. See D.E. 17-2 at 63 (form
evaluation by Dr. Gorman indicating that Mr. Saucier suffered from “extreme”
functional limitation).
In sum, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision not to adopt
Dr. Gorman’s conclusions regarding the severity of Mr. Saucier’s functional
limitations. Accordingly, the ALJ properly did not credit the portion of
Ms. Beougher’s testimony that required her to accept as true Dr. Gorman’s
opinions on Mr. Saucier’s limitations.
8
Case: 13-12221 Date Filed: 01/15/2014 Page: 9 of 9
For the above stated reasons, and upon review of the record and
consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
9