United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
C. IRICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Marie Provost (Claimant) appeals the Commissioner of Social
Security's final decision denying her application for
disability benefits and supplemental security income. Doc. 1.
Claimant argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred
by applying the wrong legal standards to the opinion of her
treating physician. Doc. 19 at 12. Claimant requests that the
case be remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 16.
For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner's final
decision is AFFIRMED.
case stems from Claimant's application for a period of
disability and disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income. Doc. 19 at 1. In both applications
Claimant's alleged a disability onset date of November 1,
2012. Id. The claims were denied initially and upon
reconsideration. Id. A hearing was conducted and on
June 14, 2017, the ALJ found that Claimant was not disabled
and issued an unfavorable decision. Id.; R. 23-24.
THE ALJ'S DECISION.
decision, the ALJ found that Claimant has the following
severe impairments: lumbar degenerative disc disease with
radiculopathy, cervical degenerative disc disease, headache
syndrome, mood disorder, panic disorder, personality
disorder, myocardial bridge, hypertension, thyroid disorder,
degenerative joint disease of the left knee, restless leg
syndrome, bipolar disorder, obesity, and neuropathy. R. 13.
further found that Claimant does not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that meets or medically equals any
listed impairment. R. 13.
found that Claimant has the RFC to perform sedentary work as
defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) and 20 C.F.R. §
416.967(a) with the following specific limitations:
She needs the option to change from sitting to standing at
least every 30 minutes which is a brief positional change
lasting no more than 3 minutes at a tie where the claimant
remains at the workstation during the positional change. She
can occasionally use hand controls, reach overhead and climb
stairs and ramps. The claimant cannot climb ladders or
scaffolds, or crawl. She can frequently balance, stoop and
crouch. The claimant should not work in any environments with
unprotected heights, moving mechanical parts and temperature
extremes. She is limited to simple tasks and simple work
related decisions and have no interaction with the public and
just occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors.
R. 15. The ALJ concluded that Claimant was unable to perform
her past relevant work. R. 22. The ALJ determined that
considering Claimant's age, education, work experience,
and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist
in significant numbers in the national economy. R. 22-23. The
ALJ ultimately found that Claimant “has not been under
a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from
November 1, 2012, through the date of this decision (20 CFR
404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).” R. 23.
STANDARD OF REVIEW.
scope of the Court's review is limited to determining
whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards,
and whether the Commissioner's findings of fact are
supported by substantial evidence. Winschel v. Comm'r
of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011)
(quotations omitted). The Commissioner's findings of fact
are conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence,
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which is defined as “more than
a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
person would accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436,
1440 (11th Cir. 1997). The Court must view the evidence as a
whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as
unfavorable to the Commissioner's decision, when
determining whether the decision is supported by substantial
evidence. Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th
Cir. 1995). The Court may not reweigh evidence or substitute
its judgment for that of the Commissioner, and, even if the
evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's
decision, the reviewing court must affirm it if the decision
is supported by substantial evidence. Bloodsworth v.
Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983).
raises one assignment of error in the Joint Motion. Doc. 19
at 12. Claimant argues that the ALJ failed to apply the
correct legal standards to the opinion of Dr. Horenstein.
Id. Claimant describes Dr. Horenstein as her