Brian Reid v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 13-1480 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 16, 2014.

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1480 BRIAN EDWARD REID, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:11-cv-02408-TMC) Argued: May 15, 2014 Decided: July 2, 2014 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Traxler and Judge Duncan joined. ARGUED: Beatrice E. Whitten, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sarah Van Arsdale Berry, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Barbara M. Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; John Jay Lee, Regional Chief Counsel, Kirsten A. Westerland, Assistant Regional Counsel, Dorrelyn K. Dietrich, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: Brian Edward Reid, who suffers from degenerative disc disease, applied for Social Security disability benefits. The Commissioner of Social Security denied Reid s claim, and the district court affirmed the Commissioner s decision. On appeal, Reid contends (1) that the Commissioner ignored several years Commissioner of his medical to consider failed multiple impairments. history the and combined (2) that effects of the his Because we find that the Commissioner s decision was based on all the medical evidence and that the Commissioner did indeed consider Reid s impairments in combination, we affirm. I Reid filed for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434, on December 7, 2006, alleging that he became unable to work on June 4, 2004, when, during work, he fell off of a roof. Reid s medical history, as documented by the record, shows that, prior to his fall, on November 18, 2003, Reid visited Dr. George Khoury for his chronic neck pain. Dr. Khoury diagnosed Reid with cervical disc disease and, in December 2003, performed a two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. 3 When Reid fell off the roof on June 4, 2004, he suffered two spinal fractures. After he was discharged from the hospital four days later, he still complained of pain and returned to the doctor on multiple occasions in the subsequent months. Although Dr. Khoury noted on September 9, 2004, that Reid was feeling better and that he had minimal complaints, on January 13, 2005, he nonetheless improvement and appropriate. 2005, and, progressing medication. reported decided that that Reid a had not posterior seen fusion any was Dr. Khoury performed the procedure on February 11, by March well 29, and 2005, was noted cutting that back on Reid his was use really of pain On May 5, 2005, Dr. Todd Joye -- another doctor Reid was seeing for pain -- found that the fusion surgery was very successful and ha[d] nearly resolved [Reid s] thoracic pain and that steroid injections help[ed] him tremendously in regards to his back pain. reported that Reid s And on November 23, 2005, Dr. Khoury original thoracic pain ha[d] totally resolved. Several months later, on March 24, 2006, Reid began seeing another doctor, Dr. Kerri Kolehma, complaining of severe bilateral leg pain that was aggravated by walking, difficulty using his left ankle, and numbness in several of his toes. Dr. Kolehma s physical exam revealed that Reid had [n]ormal muscle bulk and tone, and Reid s tests yielded normal results, except 4 for some loss of reflexes. Reid s leg pain was Subsequent testing revealed that related to vascular problems. Reid underwent an iliac artery angioplasty on May 30, 2006, performed by Dr. Kevin Beach. By July 10, 2006, Dr. Beach found that Reid was doing amazingly well and appear[ed] to be a changed man, noting that he had lost weight and was exercising. On October 25, 2006, Reid again visited Dr. Khoury, whom he had not seen since February. at maximum medical Dr. Khoury concluded that Reid was improvement and ha[d] essentially total disability to the lumbar spine because of his fracture. He also concluded that Reid was not able to return to any kind of work activity at this point. A few months later, however, on January 17, 2007, when Reid visited Dr. Kolehma, he said that he felt like a million bucks after changing drugs. He reported that he had been cleaning his home and working out. On April 11, 2007, Reid visited Dr. William Kee, a clinical psychologist, for help with his anxiety and pain management. Reid told Dr. Kee that he cooked on a daily basis and cared for his 12-year-old daughter. In September 2007, Reid began seeing Drs. Marc Dubick and Tony Azzolino, who noted that Reid had severe pain below the fusion site and weakness in the lower lumbar area. Dr. Dubick administered an epidural injection and Reid experienced total 5 pain relief. Dr. Dubick reported on December 17, 2007, that Reid s functional level ha[d] increased dramatically. Reid continued to go to Dr. Dubick from January 2008 to July 2009 for injection therapy and pain medication, and during this period, Dr. Dubick reported that Reid was doing very well, gardening and doing his normal activities, leading a normal lifestyle, and showing some improvement, although Reid sometimes complained of significant quite a bit of discomfort. pain and experienced In July 2009, Reid suffered a fall that exacerbated his back pain, but the next month, on August 19, 2009, Dr. Dubick noted that Reid s injuries [were] markedly improved from his fall and that his back discomfort was minor. Finally, several times in 2008, Reid visited Summerville Behavioral Health, complaining of obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms and panic attacks. Reid filed his claim for disability benefits on December 7, 2006, which was denied. conducted before an September 11, 2009. from several Following his request, a hearing was administrative law judge ( ALJ ) on While the ALJ did find that Reid suffered medical impairments, he did not find credible Reid s statements about the intensity, persistence, and effects of his pain and other symptoms in light of the objective evidence of his residual functionality and positive response to 6 treatment. Accordingly, the ALJ found that because Reid could engage in sedentary work, he ha[d] not been under a disability . . . from June 4, 2004 through the date of this decision. On review of the ALJ s decision, the Appeals Council remanded the case, ordering the ALJ to consider the evidence from June 4, 2004, forward, which the ALJ had not done because he thought that res judicata applied to the 2004-2006 period. The Appeals effect of Council Reid s also instructed mental the impairments ALJ to and consider obesity on the his disability claim. The ALJ conducted a second hearing on January 18, 2011, after which he again denied Reid benefits. Reid s severe impairments included The ALJ found that adjustment disorder and a history of obesity, in addition to degenerative disc disease. Nonetheless, the ALJ found that Reid did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed Appendix 1. ha[d] impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, In making that finding, the ALJ explained that he considered the combined effects of the claimant s impairments, both severe and non-severe, and ha[d] determined that the findings related to them [were] not at least equal in severity to a listed impairment. After recounting Reid s medical history in substantial detail, the ALJ found that Reid 7 had the residual functional capacity to perform unskilled sedentary work and thus was not disabled. Reid again appealed to the Appeals Council, which largely adopted the ALJ s findings and conclusions, including the findings that Reid s impairments did not meet or medically equal in severity a listed impairment and that Reid s subjective complaints were not credible in light of his residual functional capacity. found that Differing from the ALJ, however, the Appeals Council Reid s adjustment disorder was not severe, and, therefore, that Reid retained the ability to perform the full range of sedentary work. The Appeals Council s decision was the final decision of the Commissioner. Reid commenced this Commissioner s decision. action, seeking review of the He argued, among other things, that (1) the decision was not based on substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to consider the evidence between 2004 and 2006 and (2) the ALJ had not evaluated the combined effects of Reid s multiple impairments. With respect to the substantial evidence argument, a magistrate judge found that Reid had failed to show how he was harmed by any failure on the part of the ALJ to specifically cite evidence from the 2004-2006 period and that, in any event, the record indicated that the ALJ and Appeals Council had indeed considered all the evidence before them. magistrate judge also found that 8 the ALJ had The explicitly considered Thus, and the discussed combination judge magistrate Reid s of recommended impairments. affirming the Commissioner. The district recommendation and court followed affirmed, the adopting magistrate the magistrate judge s judge s report and providing additional explanation for its decision. Reid v. Astrue, No. 6:11-2408-TMC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17815 (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 2013). This appeal followed. II Reid raises two issues on appeal. First, he argues that [t]he Commissioner s decision to deny [his] benefits was not based on the entire record. Specifically, he criticizes the ALJ s discussion of his medical history in the period from 2004 to 2006, noting that [t]he ALJ referenced evidence from the period 2004 to 2006 just a few times; and he never mentioned objective findings which supported Mr. Reid s claims. He contends that this [f]ailure to consider all relevant evidence precludes a proper substantial evidence test analysis. Reid argues meaningful that the analysis of Commissioner the combined impairments. 9 failed to effect of Second, provide his any multiple We review the district court s judgment de novo, applying the same standard of review applied by the district court, and thus we review evidence. 2005) the Commissioner s decision for substantial See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. (per curiam). While the Commissioner s decision must contain a statement of the case, in understandable language, setting forth a Commissioner s discussion determination of the and evidence, the reason and or stating reasons the upon which it is based, 42 U.S.C. § 405(b)(1), there is no rigid requirement that the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of evidence in his decision, Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); accord Russell v. Chater, No. 942371, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17254, at *8 (4th Cir. July 7, 1995) (per curiam) (explaining that this Court has not establish[ed] an inflexible rule requiring an exhaustive point-by-point discussion in all cases ). After carefully reviewing the record in the present case, we conclude that the statutory requirements. Commissioner s decision satisfied the The Commissioner, through the ALJ and Appeals Council, stated that the whole record was considered, and, absent evidence to the contrary, we take her at her word. See Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1173 (10th Cir. 2005) ( [O]ur general practice, which we see no reason to depart from here, is to take a lower tribunal at its word when it declares 10 that it has considered a matter ). Moreover, the record shows that the ALJ s decision, on which the Commissioner s decision was based, specifically referenced Reid s history of thoracic and lumbar fusion, noting that treatment notes from the relevant period document that the claimant was responding well to treatment with minimal complaints. This finding -- which relates to the time period that Reid claims the Commissioner ignored -- is amply supported by the record. Indeed, Reid has failed to point to any specific piece of evidence not considered by the Commissioner that might have changed the outcome of his disability claim. decision was As such, we conclude that the Commissioner s based on the entire record and supported by substantial evidence. Reid s other argument -- that the Commissioner failed to consider his impairments in combination -- is similarly without merit. To be sure, an ALJ must adequately explain his or her evaluation of impairments. the combined effects of [a claimant s] Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47, 50 (4th Cir. 1989). But in the present case, the ALJ did consider Reid s impairments in combination. After meticulously describing why Reid s three severe impairments -- his degenerative disc disease, adjustment disorder, disabling, and the obesity -- ALJ then did not, individually, considered 11 whether qualify these as three impairments, cumulatively, would equal in severity a listed impairment: [T]he undersigned has considered the combined effects of the claimant s impairments, both severe and nonsevere, and has determined that the findings related to them are not at least equal in severity to those described in Listings 1.00, 4.00, 11.00, and 12.00. In this consideration, the undersigned has specifically considered the cumulative effects of the impairments on the claimant s ability to work. See also Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47 (4th Cir. 1989). The undersigned notes that the claimant s heart condition was asymptomatic despite his history of obesity. Even with consideration of the combined effects of the claimant s obesity, treatment records fail to indicate that the claimant s degenerative disc disease status post fusion resulted in an inability to ambulate or perform fine or gross motor movements effectively. The claimant s physical impairments obviously affected his mental health condition. Nevertheless, when considered in conjunction, no further limitation in the claimant s mental health condition, other than those discussed above, are warranted. (Emphasis added). that Reid impairments did not have that met or impairments. that Relying on this analysis, the ALJ concluded the combinatorial an medically (Emphasis added). Commissioner effects of impairment equaled one combination of the of listed It is thus readily apparent specifically Reid s or various contemplated impairments and, the in doing so, more than satisfied the statutory requirements and our guidance set forth in Walker. AFFIRMED 12

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.