Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-15131
APRIL 6, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(April 6, 2010)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Annie Victoria Salazar appeals the district courts order affirming the Social
Chater, 84 F.3d 1397, 1400 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (citation and quotation
omitted). We do not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our own judgment for that
of the Commissioner. Id. (citation omitted). If the [Agency]s decision is
supported by substantial evidence we must affirm, even if the proof preponderates
against it. Id. (citation omitted). However, there is no presumption that the
[Agency] followed the appropriate legal standards in deciding a claim for benefits
or that the legal conclusions reached were valid. Id. (citation omitted).
II. DISCUSSION
The social security regulations establish a five-step sequential evaluation
process to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. 416.920(a)(1).
If the Agency finds a claimant disabled or not disabled at any given step, it does
not go on to the next step. Id. 416.920(a)(4). Under the first step, the ALJ must
determine whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity.
Id. 416.920(b). At the second step, the ALJ must determine whether the
impairment or combination of impairments from which the claimant allegedly
suffers is severe. Id. 416.920(c). If there is no severe impairment, then the
claimant is not disabled, and the claim is denied. Id. At the third step, the ALJ
must decide whether the claimants severe impairment meets or medically equals a
listed impairment. Id. 416.920(d). If the claimant meets or medically equals a
listed impairment, then the claimant is conclusively presumed disabled. Id. If the
claimant has a severe impairment that does not meet or equal a listed impairment,
the ALJ must then determine whether the claimant has the residual functional
capacity (RFC) to perform her past relevant work. Id. 416.920(e) & (f).
[RFC] is an assessment, based upon all of the relevant evidence, of a claimants
remaining ability to do work despite his impairments. Lewis v. Callahan, 125
F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). Finally, if the claimant cannot
perform her past relevant work, the ALJ must then determine whether the claimant
can perform other work that exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R.
416.920(g).
The sequential process places a very heavy burden on the claimant to
demonstrate both a qualifying disability and an inability to perform past relevant
work. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)
(citation omitted). Until step five is reached, the burden is on the claimant to
introduce evidence in support of her application for benefits. Ellison v. Barnhart,
355 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).
A.
Severe Impairment
Salazar argues that the ALJ erred in finding that she was not disabled
because he failed to find that her hand injuries constituted a severe impairment.
discrediting Salazars allegations regarding the intensity of her hand injuries and its
effect on her ability to use her hand. Holt, 921 F.2d at 1223.
In light of medical evidence indicating that her hand injuries were not
severe, and Salazars own observed and reported behavior indicating that her
injuries had no effect on her ability to perform work, Salazar did not meet her
burden of showing that her hand injuries constituted a severe impairment.
Accordingly, we hold that substantial evidence supported the ALJs finding that
Salazars hand injuries were not severe.
B.
Hypothetical Question
Salazar argues that the ALJ erred by relying on the testimony of a VE who
economy. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(g). At this step, the claimant has shown that she
cannot perform past relevant work, and the burden then temporarily shifts to the
Commissioner to determine whether there is other work available in significant
numbers in the national economy that the claimant is able to perform. Doughty v.
Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 n.2 (11th Cir. 2001).
If the ALJ finds that the claimant is able to perform other work, he must
articulate specific jobs that the claimant is able to perform, and this finding must be
supported by substantial evidence, not mere intuition or conjecture. Wilson v.
Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1227 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). One way in which
the ALJ may determine whether the claimant is able to perform other jobs is by
posing a hypothetical question to a VE. See id. In order for a vocational experts
testimony to constitute substantial evidence, the ALJ must pose a hypothetical
question which comprises all of the claimants impairments. Id. Nevertheless, the
ALJs hypothetical need not include a claimants asserted impairments that are not
supported by medical evidence, or that are controlled or alleviated by medication.
Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1270 (The hypothetical need only include the claimants
impairments, not each and every symptom of the claimant.) (internal citation
omitted).
10
Having found that the record does not support Salazars contention that her
ability to use her hands was limited, the ALJ was under no obligation to include
such limitations in his hypothetical question to the VE. Therefore, the hypothetical
question was not incomplete. Accordingly, we hold that substantial evidence
supported the ALJs reliance on the response to the hypothetical in determining
that Salazar was not disabled.
III. CONCLUSION
In sum, the ALJ had substantial evidence upon which to base his finding that
Salazars hand injuries were not severe. Similarly, the ALJ properly relied on the
VEs answer to his complete question regarding the existence of jobs.
Accordingly, we affirm the Agencys denial of SSI.
AFFIRMED.
11