Gault v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration , 535 F. App'x 495 ( 2013 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0874n.06
No. 13-5284 FILED
Oct 07, 2013
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CHERI M. GAULT, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE
) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN
ADMINISTRATION, ) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
)
BEFORE: KEITH, GUY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Cheri M. Gault appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the denial
of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits.
Gault filed applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income
benefits, alleging that she became disabled on May 1, 1982. After the Social Security
Administration denied the applications, Gault requested a hearing before an administrative law judge
(ALJ). The ALJ determined that Gault was not disabled. The Appeals Council remanded the case
for further consideration. Following a supplemental hearing, the ALJ again determined that Gault
was not disabled. The Appeals Council declined to review the case. The district court affirmed the
ALJ’s decision.
No. 13-5284
Gault v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.
On appeal, Gault argues that the ALJ erred when he concluded that his findings concerning
Gault’s mental impairments were consistent with the medical opinion of Dr. Tracy Allred. In
Gault’s view, Allred’s conclusion that Gault had “significant” mental limitations supported a finding
of disability, while the ALJ used Allred’s opinion to determine that Gault did not have marked
mental limitations and was not disabled.
“Our review of the ALJ’s decision is limited to whether the ALJ applied the correct legal
standards and whether the findings of the ALJ are supported by substantial evidence.” Blakley v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2009). “The substantial-evidence standard is met
if a reasonable mind might accept the relevant evidence as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id.
at 406 (internal quotation marks omitted). “We give de novo review to the district court’s
conclusions on each issue.” Id. Where, as here, there is no treating source opinion that is given
controlling weight, an ALJ must consider what weight to afford each medical opinion based on
factors such as the nature and extent of the relationship between the medical source and claimant,
the specialization of the medical source, the supportability of the opinion, and the consistency of the
opinion with the record as a whole. See Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th
Cir. 2013).
The record reflects that the ALJ gave appropriate consideration to Allred’s opinion. The ALJ
correctly noted Allred’s conclusion that Gault had moderate limitations in her ability to understand
and remember and significant limitations in her ability to sustain concentration and persistence,
interact socially, and adapt to stress. Although the ALJ did not specifically address whether he
construed Allred’s reference to “significant” limitations to mean “marked” limitations, see 20 C.F.R.
-2-
No. 13-5284
Gault v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.
pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.00(C), he explicitly rejected the conclusion that Gault had marked
mental limitations on the basis that it conflicted with her benign clinical examinations, conservative
course of treatment, and daily activities. Thus, viewed in context, the ALJ adequately explained that
he accepted Allred’s opinion that Gault had some mental limitations, but rejected that those
limitations were disabling.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
-3-