Igo v. Colvin

• Decision Date: 13 October 2016
• Docket Number: No. 16–1232,16–1232
• Citation: 839 F.3d 724
• Parties: Curtis Igo, Plaintiff–Appellant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant–Appellee
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

839 F.3d 724

Curtis Igo, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant–Appellee

No. 16–1232

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 22, 2016

Filed: October 13, 2016

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Mary K. Hoefer, of Iowa City, IA. The following attorney(s) appeared on the appellant brief; Mary K. Hoefer, of Iowa City, IA.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was James D. Sides, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney of Dallas, TX. In addition to Mr. Sides, the following attorney(s) appeared on the appellee brief; Kevin E. Vanderschel, Acting U.S. Attorney, Mary E. Luxa, AUSA, and Michael McGaughran, Regional Chief Counsel, Region VI—all of Dallas, TX.

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

GRUENDER

, Circuit Judge.

Curtis Igo appeals the decision of the district court¹ affirming the administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i)

, 423. Because the decision of the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, we affirm.

I. Background

Igo claims that he is disabled as a result of osteoarthritis

and degenerative joint disease of the hips, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar and cervical spines, sensory and motor neuropathies, chronic shoulder pain and osteoarthritis, and carpal tunnel syndrome. Igo has an associate's degree in digital electronics and worked steadily throughout his life until 2010. In December 2010, he began working part-time as a receptionist at a senior center. On April 18, 2013, Igo filed his claim for disability insurance benefits, alleging disability since September 1, 2009. Igo's claim was denied initially, upon reconsideration, and after a hearing before the ALJ.

The ALJ evaluated Igo's disability claim according to the five-step sequential evaluation process prescribed by the Social Security regulations. See Goff v. Barnhart , 421 F.3d 785, 789–90 (8th Cir. 2005)

; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)–(f). At the first step of the analysis, the ALJ examines the claimant's work activity. If the claimant is performing “substantial gainful activity,” then he is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Based on Igo's monthly earnings, the ALJ concluded that Igo had not performed substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date of September 1, 2009. At the second step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe impairment that “significantly limits [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)

. The ALJ found that Igo had multiple severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar and cervical spines, osteoarthritis and degenerative joint disease of the hips, carpal tunnel syndrome, and sensory neuropathy. The ALJ found that Igo's mental impairments were nonsevere.

At the third step, the ALJ determines based on the medical evidence whether the severe impairments meet or equal the criteria of a “listed impairment,” which is presumed to be disabling. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d)

. The ALJ concluded that Igo did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or equaled the criteria of a listed impairment. The ALJ did not specify which of the listed impairments he considered.

At the fourth step, the ALJ assesses the claimant's residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and considers whether the claimant can do his past relevant work based on his RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e)

; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (defining RFC as “the most [a claimant] can still do despite” his “physical or mental limitations”). After a lengthy recitation of the testimony and medical evidence that he considered, the ALJ concluded that Igo retained the RFC to perform sedentary work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) (“Sedentary work involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools.”). Based on the RFC, the ALJ found that Igo was able to perform his past relevant work as a receptionist and, therefore, was not disabled under the Social Security Act. Thus, the ALJ did not reach the fifth step of the analysis.

The Social Security Appeals Council denied Igo's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”). Igo then sought review in the district court under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

. The district court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner. Igo now appeals, arguing that (1) the ALJ should have found that Igo meets or equals the criteria of Listing 1.02A, which is the listed impairment governing major dysfunction of a joint, and (2) the ALJ erred in assessing Igo's RFC.

II. Discussion

We review de novo the district court's decision affirming the ALJ's denial of benefits. Blackburn v. Colvin , 761 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir. 2014)

. In reviewing the ALJ's decision, we examine whether it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and whether the ALJ made any legal errors. Id. “Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence” and is “ ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would find adequate to support the Commissioner's conclusion.’ ” Id. (quoting Davis v. Apfel , 239 F.3d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 2001) ). We may not reverse simply because we would have reached a different conclusion than the ALJ or because substantial evidence supports a contrary conclusion. Id.

Igo first argues that the ALJ erred in failing to find that Igo's impairments met or equaled the criteria of Listing 1.02A and in failing to mention this listing in his decision.² However, even assuming that the ALJ erred by failing to mention Listing 1.02A, it is not necessarily reversible error. See Brown v. Colvin , 825 F.3d 936, 940 (8th Cir.2016)

(“The ALJ's failure to identify and analyze the appropriate listing, although error, may not by itself require reversal so long as the record otherwise supports the ALJ's overall conclusion.”). Thus, we will uphold the ALJ's decision so long as “substantial evidence in the record supported the ALJ's determination” that Igo's impairments did not meet or equal the criteria of any listed impairment, including Listing 1.02A. See

Boettcher v. Astrue , 652 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir. 2011).

“For a claimant to show that his impairment matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified medical criteria.” Jones v. Astrue , 619 F.3d 963, 969 (8th Cir. 2010)

(internal quotations and citations omitted). Listing 1.02 concerns the major dysfunction of a joint, which is characterized by: gross anatomical deformity; chronic joint pain and stiffness; and either joint space narrowing, bony destruction, or ankylosis shown by medically acceptable imaging. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 1.02. Listing 1.02A further requires the claimant to show that the impairment at issue involves at least “one major peripheral weight-bearing joint (i.e., hip, knee, or ankle)” and results in an “inability to ambulate effectively.” Id. at § 1.02A. In this case, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Igo did not suffer from either a “gross anatomical deformity” or an “inability to ambulate effectively.”

Because the regulations do not define “gross anatomical deformity,” we must give the term its “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States , 444 U.S. 37, 42, 100 S.Ct. 311, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979)

. The common medical definition of “gross” refers to “coarse or large” and “visible to the naked eye without the use of magnification.” Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 819 (31st ed. 2007). Listing 1.02A also provides examples of a gross anatomical deformity: subluxation, contracture, bony or fibrous ankyloses, and instability. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 1.02A. Igo concedes that he did not have subluxation, contracture, or bony or fibrous ankyloses, but he contends that he satisfies the listing because he has instability. However, any joint instability he may have had does not qualify as “gross.” The ALJ considered evidence regarding the nature of the deformity and noted that X-rays revealed severe bilateral hip degenerative changes and joint space narrowing. Because Igo's impairments were discovered through radiographic studies and were not obvious to the naked eye, there is at least substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that Igo did not suffer from a gross anatomical deformity.

An “inability to ambulate effectively” means that the impairment “interferes very seriously with [his] ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities.” Id. at § 1.00(B)(2)(b). As the ALJ noted, Igo's own testimony revealed that “on a typical day, he showered, took the bus to training, did clerical work, rode the bus home, and made dinner.” As late as May 2014, Igo “was able to ambulate and climb stairs with modified independence using a cane, and he was independent with most activities of daily living.” Therefore, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Igo did not suffer from an inability to ambulate effectively.

Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Igo did not have a combination of impairments that medically equaled Listing 1.02A. A claimant can establish equivalency if the claimant has “a combination of impairments, no one of which meets a listing,” and the findings related to that combination “are at least of equal medical significance to those of a listed impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526(b)(3)

. “To establish equivalency, a claimant ‘must present medical findings equal in severity to all the criteria for the one most similarly listed impairment.’ ” Carlson v. Astrue , 604 F.3d 589, 594 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Sullivan v. Zebley , 493 U.S. 521, 531, 110 S.Ct. 885, 107 L.Ed.2d 967 (1990) ). Igo points to no...