Sandra M. Gray v. Commissioner of Social Security
550 F. App'x 850
11th Cir.2013Background
- Sandra Monique Gray applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income; ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed.
- ALJ found some severe impairments but concluded Gray’s cervical spine condition was not a severe impairment at step two of the sequential evaluation.
- ALJ nonetheless considered Gray’s cervical symptoms (pain, numbness, tingling, limited neck motion) and related medical evidence later in the RFC analysis.
- Medical evidence included opinions finding limited or inconsistent restrictions: Drs. Stengel, Moukaddem, Finn (various disabling assertions), and examining/nonexamining reviewers (Drs. Shefsky, Renny, Shriver) who found minimal objective limitations or full range of motion.
- ALJ assigned little weight to treating/examining opinions that asserted disability (explaining disability is an issue reserved to the Commissioner and pointing to inconsistencies with activities of daily living and objective findings).
- Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the ALJ applied proper legal standards and whether findings were supported by substantial evidence, and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred at step two by not finding cervical spine impairment severe | Gray: ALJ should have found cervical impairment severe and included related limitations in RFC | Commissioner: Even if step-two error occurred, ALJ considered cervical symptoms later; any error harmless | Affirmed — any step-two error was harmless because ALJ addressed the impairment in the RFC analysis |
| Whether RFC failed to account for manipulative/neck-related limitations | Gray: RFC omitted manipulation/neck limits tied to cervical impairment | Commissioner: Medical records and RFC assessments (including two physical RFCs and Dr. Shriver) support no manipulative limits; claimant’s activities undermine credibility | Affirmed — RFC supported by substantial evidence and considered objective limitations |
| Whether ALJ improperly weighed medical opinions that concluded Gray was disabled | Gray: ALJ erred in discounting treating/examining doctors who said she could not work | Commissioner: Disability is an issue reserved to the Commissioner; ALJ gave reasons for discounting those opinions as inconsistent or unsupported | Affirmed — ALJ adequately explained weight given and permissibly declined treating opinions on disability |
| Whether ALJ improperly credited nonexamining reviewers over examining sources | Gray: ALJ gave significant weight to nonexamining Dr. Renny and relied on exam reports inconsistently | Commissioner: Examining and nonexamining opinions were consistent with record and activities; ALJ properly evaluated each opinion | Affirmed — ALJ’s assignment of weight was reasonable and supported by the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard of review: substantial evidence and ALJ deference)
- Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) (courts may not reweigh evidence; defer to ALJ if supported by substantial evidence)
- Keeton v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 1994) (legal conclusions by ALJ reviewed closely; failure to apply correct law requires reversal)
- Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726 (11th Cir. 1983) (harmless error doctrine for some ALJ mistakes)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (five-step sequential evaluation framework)
- McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026 (11th Cir. 1986) (step two as a low threshold; claimant’s burden described)
- Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585 (11th Cir. 1987) (if case proceeds past step two, ALJ must consider all impairments in RFC)
- Bowen v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 629 (11th Cir. 1984) (ALJ must consider non-severe impairments in RFC)
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) (pain standard and two-part test for subjective symptoms; ALJ must give explicit reasons when discrediting testimony)
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (ALJ entitled to make credibility findings)
- Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278 (11th Cir. 1987) (ALJ must state weight given to medical opinions and reasons; treating opinions get deference absent good cause)
- Broughton v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 960 (11th Cir. 1985) (nonexamining opinions inconsistent with treating/examining do not alone constitute substantial evidence)
- Brady v. Heckler, 724 F.2d 914 (11th Cir. 1984) (impairment not severe only if minimal effect on ability to work)