Warren Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15415
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-00074-MP-GRJ
WARREN LEWIS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(August 16, 2012)
Before BARKETT, WILSON, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 11-15415 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 1 of 7

-- 1 of 7 --

Warren Lewis appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner
of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of his application for a period of
disability and disability insurance benefits, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Lewis contends
that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to follow the directives of Social
Security Ruling (“SSR”) 02-1p governing obesity. He argues that his obesity and
arthritis combined should equate to a listing-level of impairment, although he does
not specify which listing.
We review the decision of the ALJ as the Commissioner’s final decision
when the ALJ has denied benefits and the Appeals Court has denied review of the
ALJ’s determination. Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001).
We give deference to the Commissioner’s factual findings, asking only if they are
supported by substantial evidence “consisting of such relevant evidence as a
reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). We review de novo the Commissioner’s legal
conclusions. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam).
A claimant bears the burden of showing he is disabled, see 20 C.F.R. §
404.1512(a), and the ALJ makes a five-step evaluation, applying the criteria of 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520, to determine whether the claimant has met that burden,
2
Case: 11-15415 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 2 of 7

-- 2 of 7 --

Doughty, 245 F.3d at 1278.
In order to receive disability benefits, the claimant must prove at step
one that he is not undertaking substantial gainful activity. At step
two, the claimant must prove that he is suffering from a severe
impairment or combination of impairments. At step three, if the
claimant proves that his impairment meets one of the listed
impairments found in Appendix 1, he will be considered disabled
without consideration of age, education, and work experience. If the
claimant cannot prove the existence of a listed impairment, he must
prove at step four that his impairment prevents him from performing
his past relevant work. At the fifth step, the regulations direct the
Commissioner to consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity,
age, education, and past work experience to determine whether the
claimant can perform other work besides his past relevant work.
Id. (citations omitted). At the fourth and fifth steps, the ALJ makes a
determination of the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) by examining
his ability to sit, stand, walk, lift, carry, push, pull, reach, stoop, crouch, handle,
and perform other work-related physical demands. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e),
(f), 404.1545(b).
As Lewis acknowledges in his brief, obesity is not a listed impairment, but
the ALJ is required to consider obesity in the analysis of a claimant’s overall
medical condition. See SSR 02-1p. Social Security Regulation 02-1p provides
that obesity shall be considered when determining if (1) a claimant has a medically
determinable impairment, (2) the impairment is severe, (3) the impairment meets
or equals the requirements of a listed impairment, and (4) the impairment bars
3
Case: 11-15415 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 3 of 7

-- 3 of 7 --

claimant “from doing past relevant work and other work that exists in significant
numbers in the national economy.” SSR 02-1p. The Regulation also states that:
Because there is no listing for obesity, we will find that an individual
with obesity “meets” the requirements of a listing if he or she has
another impairment that, by itself, meets the requirements of a listing.
We will also find that a listing is met if there is an impairment that, in
combination with obesity, meets the requirements of a listing. . . .
We may also find that obesity, by itself, is medically equivalent to a
listed impairment. . . . For example, if the obesity is of such a level
that it results in an inability to ambulate effectively, as defined in
sections 1.00B2b or 101.00B2b of the listings, it may substitute for
the major dysfunction of a joint(s) due to any cause (and its
associated criteria), with the involvement of one major peripheral
weight-bearing joint in listings 1.02A or 101.02A, and we will then
make a finding of medical equivalence. . . .
We will also find equivalence if an individual has multiple
impairments, including obesity, no one of which meets or equals the
requirements of a listing, but the combination of impairments is
equivalent in severity to a listed impairment.
SSR 02-1p.
We find that the ALJ properly considered Lewis’s obesity in
accordance with SSR 02-1p when making a disability determination. The
ALJ heard testimony from treating doctors and reviewed evidence from a
number of sources regarding Lewis’s obesity, considering his obesity in the
context of his other health problems. Ultimately, the ALJ concluded that
Lewis’s morbid obesity was a severe impairment but that it was not one that
4
Case: 11-15415 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 4 of 7

-- 4 of 7 --

rose to the level of a listed impairment, even in conjunction with other
impairments. The ALJ also found that despite his obesity, Lewis had the
RFC to (1) lift twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently, (2)
stand, walk, or sit for about six out of eight hours in a workday, and (3)
perform light work as defined by 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b). He concluded
that although Lewis could not perform his past relevant work, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Lewis would
be able to perform. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Lewis is not
disabled.
The ALJ’s determinations are all supported by substantial evidence in
the record. Dr. Chodosh examined Lewis in 2006 and assessed that Lewis
“d[id] not appear particularly unhealthy.” He stated that despite some
health problems, Lewis was able to be independent in activities of daily
living and could walk, stand, sit, stoop, lift light objects, and use his hands
normally. Dr. Chodosh also found that Lewis had full strength and motor
function in his limbs, despite some swelling in his legs, and that the
reduction in Lewis’s range of motion was minor. In 2006, Lewis underwent
a thoracotomy, but one month after the procedure, he checked in with
Doctor Proia and stated that “he fe[lt] quite good.” In 2007, Dr. Pack
5
Case: 11-15415 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 5 of 7

-- 5 of 7 --

treated Lewis for foot pain and recorded that Lewis had “[n]o perceived
weakness” and “no problems with ambulation.” Lewis also visited an
imaging center in 2007 for investigation of hip, shoulder, and back pain,
and the report indicated only “mild to moderate degenerative changes of
both hips,” with no indication of harm in other regions. At his hearing with
the ALJ, Lewis testified about his symptoms and the restrictions that his
health placed on the ability to engage in daily activities. A vocational
expert was then called to testify to the availability of work that a
hypothetical candidate with Lewis’s characteristics could perform, and he
responded that such positions existed in significant numbers in the regional
and national economy.
The record indicates that although Lewis had health problems, these
problems did not amount to a listing-level impairment. To the extent that
Lewis argues that he had arthritis that would meet the requirements of
Musculoskeletal System impairment, 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P., app. 1, §
1.00, one criteria for that type of impairment is that a person have the
“inability to ambulate effectively on a sustained basis,” id. Because the
record indicates that Lewis was capable of ambulating, he would not fall
within that listed impairment.
6
Case: 11-15415 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 6 of 7

-- 6 of 7 --

We therefore affirm because the ALJ’s findings are legally correct
and supported by substantial evidence.
AFFIRMED.
7
Case: 11-15415 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 7 of 7

-- 7 of 7 --