Summary
upholding ALJ's decision to discount claimant's subjective complaints based on history of conservative treatment, lack of supporting objective medical evidence, and claimant's daily activities
Summary of this case from Maldonado v. BerryhillOpinion
No. 15-2030
10-20-2016
WAYNE NEIL FLOOD, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant, Appellee.
Before Howard, Chief Judge, Lynch and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
JUDGMENT
Claimant Wayne Neil Flood appeals from a district court judgment affirming a 2013 decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying Flood's application for supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits. On appeal, Flood contends (1) that the administrative law judge ("ALJ"), in determining that Flood's assessments of his own symptoms and limitations were not credible, improperly considered evidence of alleged drug-seeking behavior, and (2) that the ALJ was required, as part of his finding that Flood retained the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform light work, to specify whether Flood's need to change positions would require him to leave his workstation. After careful review of the record and the parties' submissions, we AFFIRM.
Our review "is limited to determining whether the ALJ deployed the proper legal standards and found facts upon the proper quantum of evidence." Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Ordinarily, this court must defer to a credibility determination made by an ALJ who has heard claimant's testimony and considered claimant's demeanor. Frustaglia v. Sec. of Health & Human Serv., 829 F.2d 192, 195 (1st Cir. 1987).
As to Flood's first argument, this court has yet to address expressly the question of whether an ALJ may consider evidence of a claimant's alleged drug-seeking behavior in assessing whether the claimant's statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms are credible. 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(a)-(d) (general information re: assessment of symptoms and pain). We need not reach that issue here, because even assuming, arguendo, that the ALJ did err, any error would be harmless because substantial evidence of record supports the ALJ's credibility determination. The ALJ properly followed the two-step analysis outlined in the Commissioner's regulations in arriving at the determination and explained that the credibility determination was based on: (i) Claimant's history of conservative treatment; (ii) improvement of symptoms with treatment; (iii) a lack of objective medical findings supporting Claimant's allegations of disabling restrictions; and (iv) the extent of Claimant's daily activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c). Moreover, we note that 20 C.F.R. § 416.935, on which Flood attempts to rely, is plainly inapplicable to his case because the ALJ did not find that Flood was disabled. See 404 C.F.R. § 416.935 (barring the award of SSI benefits, despite a determination of disability, when a claimant's drug addiction and/or alcoholism is "a contributing factor material to the determination of disability").
As to Flood's second argument, he has failed to identify any authority legitimately supporting his assertion that the ALJ was required to specify as part of the RFC finding whether Flood's need to alternate positions while sitting, standing, and walking would require him to leave his workstation. The authority to which Flood does point provides no support for that proposition. Affirmed.
By the Court:
/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk cc:
Riley Fenner
Susan Beller
Thomas Delahanty, II
Margaret McGaughey
Gwendolnyn Julia Russell
Jeanne Dana Semivan
Jason W. Valencia