Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gorshkov v. Saul

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

August 16, 2019

JOSEPHINE GORSHKOV, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, [1] Defendant.

          ORDER

          HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER P. TUTTE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         The Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's denial of her claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments. For the reasons discussed below, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed.

         I.

         The Plaintiff was born in 1988, obtained a GED, and has past relevant work experience as a loan officer and telemarketer. (R. 20, 77, 79). In February 2015, the Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI, alleging disability as of June 30, 2011, due to a brain cyst, migraines, scoliosis, anxiety, sleep disorder, and vision fluctuations. (R. 165-75, 189). The Social Security Administration denied her applications both initially and on reconsideration. (R. 123-24).

         At the Plaintiff's request, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing on the matter on December 28, 2016. (R. 70-94). The Plaintiff appeared at the hearing without a representative and testified on her own behalf. A vocational expert (VE) also testified.

         In a decision dated May 16, 2017, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff: (1) was insured through June 30, 2011, and had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date; (2) had the severe impairments of migraine headaches, anxiety disorder, scoliosis of the spine, and a history of benign intracranial epidermoid cyst status post resection; (3) did not, however, have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of any of the listed impairments; (4) had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work with some postural, environmental, and mental limitations; and (5) based in part on the VE's testimony, could not perform her past relevant work but was capable of performing other jobs in significant numbers in the national economy. (R. 11-22). In light of these findings, the ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff was not disabled. (R. 22).

         Following the ALJ's determination, the Plaintiff submitted additional evidence (R. 40-69) and retained a lawyer (R. 33-36). The Plaintiff's attorney thereafter requested review by the Appeals Council (R. 251-52), but that request was denied (R. 1-7). Accordingly, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner.

         II.

         The Social Security Act (the Act) defines disability as the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment . . . which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505(a), 416.905(a).[2] A physical or mental impairment under the Act “results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(3), 1382c(a)(3)(D).

         To determine whether a claimant is disabled, the Social Security Regulations prescribe “a five-step, sequential evaluation process.” Carter v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 726 Fed.Appx. 737, 739 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4).[3] Under this process, an ALJ must determine whether the claimant: (1) is performing substantial gainful activity; (2) has a severe impairment; (3) has a severe impairment that meets or equals an impairment specifically listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) has the RFC to perform past relevant work; and (5) can perform other work in the national economy given her RFC, age, education, and work experience. Carter, 726 Fed.Appx. at 739 (citing Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1237 (11th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4)). While the claimant has the burden of proof through step four, the burden temporarily shifts to the Commissioner at step five. Sampson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 694 Fed.Appx. 727, 734 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999)). If the Commissioner carries that burden, the claimant must then prove that she cannot perform the work identified by the Commissioner. Id. In the end, “the overall burden of demonstrating the existence of a disability . . . rests with the claimant.” Washington v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1280 (11th Cir. 2001)).

         A claimant who does not prevail at the administrative level may seek judicial review in federal court provided that the Commissioner has issued a final decision on the matter after a hearing. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Judicial review is limited to determining whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether he applied the correct legal standards. Id.; Hargress v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r, 883 F.3d 1302, 1305 n.2 (11th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Hargress, 883 F.3d at 1305 n.2 (quoting Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004)). In evaluating whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision, the Court “may not decide the facts anew, make credibility determinations, or re-weigh the evidence.” Carter, 726 Fed.Appx. at 739 (citing Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)). While the court accords deference to the Commissioner's factual findings, “no such deference is given to [his] legal conclusions.” Keel-Desensi v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 1417326, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2019) (citations omitted).

         III.

         The Plaintiff claims on appeal that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate symptoms caused by her visual impairments. (Doc. 22 at 5-6). In particular, the Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in dismissing her complaints of diplopia (double vision), photophobia (light sensitivity), and blurry vision, even though evidence demonstrated that such symptoms persisted and would interfere with her ability to perform the representative occupations identified by the ALJ. Id. As a result, the Plaintiff submits that the matter must be remanded for further consideration of her vision problems. Id.

         The Commissioner counters that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination with respect to the Plaintiff's alleged visual impairments and that the ALJ properly assessed the medical ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.