Sandra M. GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-11837
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 30, 2013.
550 F. App‘x 850
We review constitutional sentencing issues de novo. United States v. Steed, 548 F.3d 961, 978 (11th Cir.2008) (per curiam). In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226–27, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 1222, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held the government does not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a defendant had prior convictions or allege those prior convictions in the indictment in order to use them to enhance a defendant‘s sentence under a federal statute. Although the Supreme Court has since expressed some doubt as to whether Almendarez-Torres was correctly decided, it has explicitly declined to revisit that decision. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 2362, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); see also Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2160 n. 1, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) (declining to revisit Almendarez-Torres, because the parties did not contest that decision). Rather, the Supreme Court has maintained, “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. at 2362-63.
Furthermore, we since have held Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 846 (11th Cir.2009); United States v. Gibson, 434 F.3d 1234, 1246-47 (11th Cir.2006). We have also recognized that we are “bound to follow Almendarez-Torres unless and until the Supreme Court itself overrules that decision.” United States v. Thomas, 242 F.3d 1028, 1035 (11th Cir.2001). Because Hernandez-Abraham concedes binding precedent forecloses his argument, the district judge erred by enhancing his sentence based on prior convictions not charged in the indictment or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
AFFIRMED.
Amy Morelli, Dana Myers, Christopher Gene Harris, Mary Ann Sloan, Laura Anne Verduci, Dennis Robert Williams, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Atlanta, GA, Robert E. O‘Neill, John F. Rudy, III, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sandra Monique Gray appeals the district court‘s order affirming the Social Security Administration‘s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. On appeal, Gray argues that the administrative law judge (“ALJ“) erred by concluding that she did not suffer from a severe cervical spine impairment and by omitting limitations from that impairment in the RFC assessment, and also erred in weighing the medical opinion evidence. After careful review, we affirm.
We review the ALJ‘s decision in order to determine whether the ALJ applied proper legal standards and whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Crawford v. Comm‘r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir.2004). Substantial evidence is “more than a scintilla” and is relevant evidence that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion that a claimant is or is not entitled to benefits. Id. We may not reweigh the evidence and decide facts anew, and must defer to the ALJ‘s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence even if the evidence preponderates against it. See Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir.2005). By contrast, we give no deference to the ALJ‘s legal conclusions, which are reviewed with “close scrutiny.” Keeton v. Dep‘t of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir.1994). An ALJ‘s failure to apply the correct law or provide sufficient reasoning so as to determine that the proper legal analysis has been conducted requires reversal. Id. However, even if the ALJ made a factual error or applied an improper legal standard, we may conclude that such errors are harmless in the context of a particular case. See Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726, 728 (11th Cir.1983) (concluding that the ALJ erred in stating the claimant was closely approaching advanced age and in considering the claimant‘s prior job as an assembler, contrary to the regulations, but holding that these errors were harmless).
First, we are unpersuaded by Gray‘s claim that the ALJ erred in its conclusions concerning Gray‘s alleged severe cervical spine impairment. The Commissioner uses a five-step, sequential eval
Step two is a threshold inquiry that “allows only claims based on the most trivial impairments to be rejected.” McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1031 (11th Cir.1986). It thus “acts as a filter” to weed out claims where there are no substantial impairments at all. Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585, 588 (11th Cir.1987). To show a “severe” impairment, a claimant must show “any impairment or combination of impairments which significantly limits [her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.”
Where a claimant attempts to establish disability through her own testimony concerning pain or other subjective symptoms, “the claimant must satisfy two parts of a three-part test showing: (1) evidence of an underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged pain; or (b) that the objectively determined medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise” to the claimed symptoms. Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir.2002). In weighing the evidence, credibility determinations “are the province of the ALJ.” Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir.2005). If the ALJ discredits the claimant‘s subjective testimony, the ALJ “must articulate explicit and adequate reasons for doing so“; failure to do so “requires, as a matter of law, that the testimony be accepted as true.” Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225.
Here, we need not consider whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ‘s conclusion at step two—that Gray‘s cervical spine impairment was not a severe impairment—because even if there was error, it would be harmless. In assessing Gray‘s RFC, the ALJ found that Gray had severe impairments and that the step two test was satisfied, and then specifically considered and discussed the symptoms that Gray alleged stemmed from a cervical spine impairment elsewhere in the five-step sequential process. See Jamison, 814 F.2d at 588. The ALJ thus performed the analysis that would have been required
To the extent that Gray argues the RFC assessment did not take into account her limitations in manipulation that stemmed from a cervical spine impairment, the ALJ‘s RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence. As a preliminary matter, Gray appears to only argue that her RFC would be “more accurate[]” if a severe cervical spine impairment had been determined at step two. However, Dr. Shriver opined that Gray‘s very mild median mononeuropathy did not explain her reported symptoms, and was in fact only expected to cause mild and intermittent tingling in her hand depending on Gray‘s activity and hand position. Further, two physical RFC assessments concluded that Gray had no manipulative limitations. The ALJ also concluded that Gray‘s statements regarding her symptoms were not credible to the extent they were inconsistent with the RFC, considering her wide variety of activities of daily living, which included housework, going to community meetings, and attending to her personal care. See Moore, 405 F.3d at 1212 (explaining that the ALJ is entitled to make credibility findings). Accordingly, the RFC assessment did not take into account objectively determinable manipulative limitations, and is otherwise supported by substantial evidence.
We also find no merit in Gray‘s claim that the ALJ erred in weighing the medical opinion evidence. In assessing medical evidence, the ALJ must “state with particularity the weight he gave the different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir.1987). The ALJ must “accord considerable weight to [the claimant‘s] treating physician‘s opinion absent good cause for not doing so.” Id. at 279-80; see
As the record shows here, the ALJ adequately explained the weight assigned to different medical opinions and the reasoning behind his decisions. First, the opinions of Dr. Stengel, Dr. Moukkadem, and Dr. Finn that Gray was unable to work are not entitled to controlling weight because disability is an issue reserved to the Commissioner as an administrative finding, and in any event the ALJ adequately explained why the doctors’ conclusions were entitled to little weight. See
As for Gray‘s arguments regarding the opinions of Dr. Shefsky and Dr. Renny, Dr. Shefsky was an examining physician who concluded that Gray had a full range of motion in her cervical and lumbar spine. See Broughton, 776 F.2d at 962 (“[T]he opinion of an examining physician is generally entitled to more weight than the opinion of a non-examining physician.” (quotation omitted)). Although Dr. Shefsky appears to have not had the benefit of reviewing MRI evidence, this does not undermine the range of motion results of his physical examination, and the ALJ only mentioned Dr. Shefsky‘s examination for the purpose of showing that physical examination did not reveal limitations in her back or in other areas where she complained of symptoms. Dr. Shefsky‘s opinion regarding Gray‘s limitations of motion in her cervical spine is not contrary to the record as a whole, given Gray‘s reports of being able to do household chores and attend social events. Further, Dr. Renny‘s physical RFC examination did not rely solely on Dr. Shefsky‘s report, but also reviewed MRI reports and the records of at least one other doctor, and noted Gray‘s allegations of cervical degenerative disc disease. Dr. Renny‘s opinion was also consistent with the evidence as a whole, given that Dr. Shefsky concluded Gray had no limitations in the movement of her cervical spine, Dr. Stengel described her cervical spine as typical for her age, and Gray reported activities of daily living that included household chores, attending events, shopping, and walking. See id. (stating that the reports of nonexamining physicians do not, if “taken alone,” constitute substantial evidence). Accordingly, the ALJ did not err by giving significant weight to the opinion of Dr. Renny.
AFFIRMED.
Sandra Monique Gray
Plaintiff-Appellant