Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-10713/USCOURTS-ca11-14-10713-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10713

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-01342-PAZ

MICHELLE ZUBA-INGRAM, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(January 26, 2015)

Before MARCUS and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE,

∗ District 

Judge.

 

∗ Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, 

sitting by designation.

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 1 of 16
2

PER CURIAM: 

Michelle Zuba-Ingram appeals the magistrate judge’s order affirming the 

denial of her application for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and 

supplemental security income by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”).1

 

We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In August 2009, Zuba-Ingram filed applications for a period of disability, 

disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income, under Titles II and 

XVI of the Social Security Act. Her applications were denied initially, but ZubaIngram was granted a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). In a 

pre-hearing brief, Zuba-Ingram contended she suffered from severe post-traumatic 

stress disorder (“PTSD”), depression, anxiety with panic disorder, and 

agoraphobia. She asserted an alleged onset date of June 4, 2009. She further 

alleged she had been physically assaulted while serving in the military, and had 

also been abused as a child.

During her October 2010 hearing, Zuba-Ingram testified she was 47, had 

attained one master’s degree, and was close to obtaining a second. She had three

children, ages 25, 17, and 11. She previously had worked as a middle-school 

 

1 The parties consented to disposition by a magistrate judge.

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 2 of 16
3

teacher but left that job in 2007, because regularly occurring fights at the school 

caused her to experience flashbacks of “stuff that had happened to [her].” ZubaIngram also had worked nights at a hardware store for approximately six months in 

2008, but had been unable to adjust to the late hours. During that time, she also 

had experienced flashbacks, migraine headaches, and panic attacks. She had taken 

several medications that occasionally caused her to feel dizzy and to be unable to 

focus.

Zuba-Ingram testified she was seeing a therapist at least once each week and 

a social worker several times per month. She was being treated by a United States 

Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) psychiatrist approximately once every five 

weeks. The ALJ asked Zuba-Ingram whether she could work in a job requiring no 

interactions with others, such as in landscaping. She responded she would be very 

anxious about being on others’ property and speaking with them.

During examination by Zuba-Ingram’s attorney, she testified her migraine 

headaches typically started without warning but occasionally were preceded by a 

“feeling in [her] neck.” She had experienced 4 headaches during the month 

preceding her hearing and approximately 20-22 in the prior year. Some months 

she experienced no headaches, while at other times she experienced 3 in one week. 

She was unsure how long the migraines lasted because of the side effects of 

medication she took to treat them.

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 3 of 16
4

The ALJ determined Zuba-Ingram could not perform her past relevant work. 

The ALJ asked a vocational expert (“VE”) to identify jobs Zuba-Ingram could 

perform for her age, education, and experience, provided (1) she had no exertional 

limitations; (2) she needed to avoid unprotected heights, heavy equipment, and 

operating machinery; and (3) she could carry out simple, routine, repetitive work 

that did not change daily and involved limited interactions with others and no team 

coordination. The VE identified three jobs: hand-packager, assembler, and 

groundskeeper.

The ALJ asked the VE to identify the maximum number of absences that 

would be accommodated without losing one’s job. The VE responded: “Three 

times in a month which would be ten to 12 times in a total year. So after five 

months of two absences that person would be terminated from employment.” 

When asked whether jobs existed for one who could work eight hours per day only 

“on an unpredictable basis,” the VE responded that such an individual would be 

unemployable. 

In support of her application, Zuba-Ingram submitted records related to her 

previous disability claim to the VA for her PTSD and migraines. The VA’s 

December 1, 2009 report included information resulting from examinations of 

Zuba-Ingram by several VA medical professionals. Neurophysiology fellow 

Jonathan M. Johnson, M.D., opined Zuba-Ingram had reported “continued 

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 4 of 16
5

problems with frequent headaches” attributed to an assault in 1983, during which 

an assailant hit Zuba-Ingram numerous times in the head with fists and a night 

stick. Since that time, the frequency of the headaches had decreased, and ZubaIngram currently was experiencing an average of approximately 3 headaches every 

three to four months. They occurred “in clusters of two or three within a few 

weeks of each other and [would] then . . . be absent or rare for a month or two.” 

While experiencing the headaches, Zuba-Ingram was “unable to function or 

tolerate social interaction and require[ed] sleep in a dark quiet room” until they 

subsided. The headaches had been present for years, and no clear change in this 

pattern appeared over the previous one to two years. Dr. Johnson’s assessment 

was, because of blunt trauma, Zuba-Ingram had developed migraine headaches that 

“appear[ed] to be relatively stable but . . . interfere[d] with her ability to function 

during acute attacks.” 

Amy Connell, M.D., reported Zuba-Ingram had a history of substance abuse 

in remission. In addition to the 1983 assault, Dr. Connell also discussed a threeday-long physical assault in 1982 that had rendered Zuba-Ingram unconscious. 

Zuba-Ingram had attributed continuing migraine headaches to the 1983 assault. 

Dr. Connell discussed at length Zuba-Ingram’s history of physical abuse and selfharm, which included two suicide attempts and psychiatric hospitalizations. 

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 5 of 16
6

Dr. Connell diagnosed Zuba-Ingram with chronic PTSD, major depressive 

disorder, and borderline personality disorder.

Amy Krohn, M.D., a VA staff psychiatrist, stated she had been treating 

Zuba-Ingram since October 2007. Dr. Krohn reported Zuba-Ingram suffered from 

PTSD resulting from a traumatic physical assault while she was serving in the 

military. Dr. Krohn discussed several of Zuba-Ingram’s PTSD symptoms in detail, 

noted that she did not suspect malingering, and stated Zuba-Ingram had been 

unemployable because of PTSD since June 2009. Dr. Krohn’s letter did not 

mention migraine headaches. An April 26, 2010, letter contained similar 

information.

Consultative examiner John L. Peggau, Psy.D., a clinical psychologist, 

examined Zuba-Ingram on November 16, 2009. Zuba-Ingram reported suffering 

from PTSD, anxiety, panic attacks, and depressive episodes. She informed 

Dr. Peggau about an incident in the military, when a male officer had locked her in 

his room and had physically assaulted her. She reported taking three medications 

for migraine headaches. According to Dr. Peggau:

[Zuba-Ingram] said that she estimates monthly migraine 

headaches but all of this was very vague and she kept 

changing her frequency from monthly to “not in quite a 

long while sometimes.” She acted as if she was crying 

but there were never any tears. She was extremely labile 

and dramatic with a theatrical presentation that had a 

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 6 of 16
7

large questionable component of malingering or gross 

embellishment and acting.

Dr. Peggau further reported Zuba-Ingram “was lacking in specifics and in 

detail when asked direct question[s]. Instead, she would often just go on 

discussing other things.” Dr. Peggau diagnosed Zuba-Ingram with anxiety 

disorder and personality disorder “with borderline and histrionic features, severe.”

On November 25, 2009, state agency consultant Michele Womontree, 

Psy.D., completed a mental Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) assessment for

Zuba-Ingram. Her assessment was Zuba-Ingram had experienced moderate 

limitations in various work-related and social-functioning abilities. 

Dr. Womontree opined Zuba-Ingram should be engaged in work involving “highly 

structured and routinized tasks which need not be simple but should have clear, 

unchanging expectations,” and “in a situation where there are not many social 

interactions or expectations.” Dr. Womontree did not address Zuba-Ingram’s 

headaches.

Based on the accumulated evidence, on December 11, 2009, the VA granted 

Zuba-Ingram a “service connection”2 for PTSD and “major depressive disorder 

(also claimed as anxiety and panic attacks),” with an evaluation of 70%, effective 

 

2 A “service connection” refers to a showing that a particular injury or disease resulting in 

disability was incurred coincident with, or was aggravated during, military service. 38 C.F.R. 

§ 3.303(a).

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 7 of 16
8

June 2008. A service connection also was granted for post-traumatic migraine 

headaches related to Zuba-Ingram’s 1983 assault, with an evaluation of 30%, 

effective October 2009. The decision explained:

We have assigned an evaluation of 30 percent based on 

the VA exam of November 2009 that stated you currently 

experience 3 headaches per 3-4 month period and that 

your headaches cause you to be unable to function or 

tolerate social interaction and require sleep in a dark and 

quiet room until they subside. Although your symptoms 

do not exactly meet the criteria for a 30 percent 

evaluation, based on your overall constellation of 

symptoms, we consider your headaches to be 

incapacitating and occur once a month on average. 

Therefore, the higher evaluation of 30 percent has been 

assigned.

A higher evaluation of 50 percent is not warranted unless 

there are very frequent, completely prostrating, and 

prolonged attacks productive of severe economic 

inadaptability.

These evaluations were continued in an August 2010 VA rating decision, 

which concluded Zuba-Ingram was unemployable because of PTSD as of 

December 28, 2009. As to Zuba-Ingram’s headaches, the 2010 VA decision 

explained:

The VA neurological examiner of July 8, 2010, 

concurred with the November 23, 20103 examiner’s 

diagnosis/medical opinion, and stated that your 

headaches do not limit you from any sort of work other 

 

3 This date appears to be a typographical error. A VA examiner previously had seen ZubaIngram on November 23, 2009.

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 8 of 16
9

than the fact that you have an occasional absence from 

work during headache flares. The core of your individual 

unemployability claim vests in your post-traumatic stress 

disorder symptoms.

In addition to the evidence preceding the VA’s decision, Zuba-Ingram 

submitted subsequent evidence to the ALJ. A February 2010 disability 

determination services (“DDS”) summary noted Zuba-Ingram had been treated for 

headaches in May 2008. An October 2009 DDS summary had identified 

headaches as one of several active problems in August 2009, again without 

elaboration.

In a letter dated April 29, 2010, Marianne Geiger, M.D., a psychiatrist ZubaIngram had not seen since 2007, stated:

I have been Michelle Zuba-Ingram’s treating physician 

for several years. During that time she has had bouts of 

severe depression, self-injurious behavior, and several 

incidents of suicidal ideation for which I had to call the 

police for transport to a psychiatric facility. She has been 

unable to tolerate the demands of staying employed. All 

of this, in my opinion, is due to major depression and 

PTSD and is related to the severe migraines she 

experiences. To date the medications we have tried have 

had only partial efficacy. I believe her to be disabled and 

unable to perform the duties of any and all employment.

Zuba-Ingram also submitted VA progress notes discussing her medical care 

between February and September 2010. These notes contained several references 

to severe PTSD, anxiety, depression, flashbacks, and self-harm. They also 

contained the scattered references to headaches.

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 9 of 16
10

In a January 10, 2011, decision, the ALJ concluded Zuba-Ingram had not 

been disabled since her alleged onset date of June 4, 2009. The ALJ determined 

Zuba-Ingram had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset 

date and had the following severe impairments: PTSD, anxiety, substance abuse in 

remission, and migraine headaches. But Zuba-Ingram did not have an impairment 

or combination of impairments that met or equalled a listed impairment. The ALJ 

concluded Zuba-Ingram had (1) no restrictions in daily-living activities; 

(2) moderate difficulties in social functioning and in concentration, persistence, or 

pace; and (3) one extended-duration episode of decompensation.

The ALJ further determined Zuba-Ingram retained a maximum RFC to 

perform a full range of work at all exertional levels, subject to the following 

nonexertional limitations: (1) the need for simple, routine, repetitive tasks that stay 

the same day to day and involve no team coordination and only minimal 

interaction with others; and (2) the need to avoid unprotected heights, heavy 

equipment, and operating machinery. The ALJ discussed several of the symptoms 

alleged by Zuba-Ingram, including her assertion that she experienced migraine 

headaches because of a past physical assault. The ALJ concluded Zuba-Ingram’s 

medically determinable impairments reasonably could be expected to cause the 

alleged symptoms. Zuba-Ingram’s statements concerning the intensity, 

persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms were not credible, to the extent 

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 10 of 16
11

they were inconsistent with the ALJ’s RFC assessment. While acknowledging 

Zuba-Ingram’s history of significant trauma, the ALJ noted her treatment generally 

had been successful in reducing or controlling her symptoms.

The ALJ determined Zuba-Ingram’s testimony concerning the limiting 

effects of her symptoms, including her allegations of unpredictable migraines 4

times per month, were contradicted by the daily-living and work activities ZubaIngram had engaged in immediately before her alleged onset date and July 2009 

hospitalization. The ALJ declined to credit Dr. Geiger’s contrary one-paragraph 

April 2010 statement, because Zuba-Ingram had not seen Dr. Geiger since 2007. 

Very limited weight also was assigned to the opinions of Dr. Krohn, whose 

statement that Zuba-Ingram had been unable to work for some time was 

inconsistent with the record. The ALJ accorded substantial weight to the state 

agency consultants’ opinions, because they were well-reasoned and consistent with 

other evidence.

The ALJ further concluded Zuba-Ingram was unable to perform any past 

relevant work. Nevertheless, considering her age, education, work experience, and 

RFC, in conjunction with the 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 

there were significant numbers of jobs in the national economy Zuba-Ingram could 

perform. The Appeals Council denied Zuba-Ingram’s request for review in April 

2012.

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 11 of 16
12

Zuba-Ingram sought review in district court. She filed a memorandum and 

argued the ALJ had erred in evaluating her migraine-headache pain and failed to 

provide sufficient reasons for discrediting her complaints. She supported her 

testimony concerning her migraine headaches with her medical records. ZubaIngram further argued the ALJ erred by failing to give any weight to the 30% 

disability rating assigned by the VA for her headaches.

The magistrate judge affirmed the ALJ’s decision. The magistrate judge 

concluded the record contained little objective evidence to support Zuba-Ingram’s 

claims regarding the limiting effects of her migraine headaches. The Social 

Security regulations endorsed the ALJ’s conclusion he was not bound by the VA’s 

disability findings. The ALJ also would have been entitled to reject the VA’s 

ratings based solely on his credibility finding. Although the ALJ should have 

explained in greater detail the weight he afforded to the VA’s findings, the 

magistrate judge determined the error was harmless.

II. DISCUSSION

Zuba-Ingram argues on appeal the ALJ failed to provide sufficient reasons 

for discrediting her complaints about pain caused by her migraine headaches. She 

contends the ALJ erred by failing to address the frequency, intensity, and duration 

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 12 of 16
13

of her headaches in the RFC findings and by failing to include a finding regarding 

the severity of her limitations.4

 

“In Social Security appeals, we must determine whether the Commissioner’s 

decision is supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.” 

Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (citation 

and internal quotation marks 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.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). “We may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute 

our judgment for that of the Commissioner.” Id. (alteration, citation, and internal 

quotation marks omitted). A litigant who offers no substantive argument on an 

issue in her initial brief abandons that issue on appeal. Timson v. Sampson, 518 

F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).

The Commissioner uses a five-step, sequential evaluation process to 

determine whether a claimant is disabled. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178. The first 

three steps ask whether the claimant (1) currently is engaged in substantial gainful 

activity and (2) has a severe impairment or combination of impairments (3) that 

meet or equal the severity of the specified impairments in the Listings. Id. The 

 

4 Zuba-Ingram has not argued in this court that the ALJ erred in not according the VA’s 

migraine-headache disability rating appropriate weight. Therefore, she has abandoned that 

argument on appeal. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004).

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 13 of 16
14

fourth step asks whether, based on the claimant’s RFC assessment, the claimant 

can perform any of her past relevant work. Id. The RFC is that which an 

individual still is able to do despite the limitations caused by her impairments. 

Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir. 2004). The ALJ must 

consider all of the evidence in the record in determining the claimant’s RFC. See 

id. The final step asks whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national 

economy the claimant can perform, given her RFC, age, education, and work 

experience. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178.

To establish a disability based on testimony of pain and other symptoms, the 

claimant must satisfy two parts of a three-part test by showing “(1) evidence of an 

underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence 

confirming the severity of the alleged pain; or (b) that the objectively determined 

medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the claimed pain.” 

Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).

In weighing the evidence, “credibility determinations are the province of the 

ALJ.” Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). If 

the ALJ discredits a claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ “must articulate 

explicit and adequate reasons for doing so.” Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225. A clearly 

articulated credibility finding supported by record evidence will not be disturbed 

on appeal. Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). 

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 14 of 16
15

By failing to state any arguments on appeal in support of any disability 

claims Zuba-Ingram may have had based on impairments other than migraine 

headaches, she has abandoned this issue. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874. She has 

not shown the ALJ erred in failing to credit her allegations concerning the limiting 

effects regarding her migraine headaches or failed to explain adequately his 

decision. Zuba-Ingram testified she had experienced approximately 20-22 

migraine headaches in the year preceding her hearing. This testimony was 

inconsistent with Dr. Johnson’s December 2009 report, which showed the 

frequency of her headaches had decreased over the years, and she was 

experiencing an average of approximately 3 headaches every three to four months 

in 2009. Zuba-Ingram’s December 2009 VA rating decision similarly reported she 

experienced 3 headaches every three to four months. Aside from Dr. Johnson’s 

report, the totality of Zuba-Ingram’s medical records contained only scattered, 

isolated references to migraine headaches. 

The ALJ was entitled to find Zuba-Ingram’s testimony regarding her prior 

employment, daily activities, and travels called into question her allegations 

concerning the limiting effects of her migraine headaches. She did not indicate 

migraine headaches interfered with travelling or daily activities. Her testimony as 

to the limiting effects of flashbacks in prior jobs similarly did not refer to migraine 

headaches. The ALJ was entitled to assign limited weight to Dr. Geiger’s opinion 

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 15 of 16
16

that Zuba-Ingram was unemployable, because Zuba-Ingram testified she had not 

seen Dr. Geiger in approximately two years. She also has not shown the ALJ erred 

in his assessment of Dr. Krohn’s letters, because they did not mention migraine 

headaches. 

Zuba-Ingram’s argument that the ALJ’s RFC assessment inadequately 

accounted for her headaches is misplaced. The ALJ’s conclusion as to ZubaIngram’s maximum RFC shows the ALJ determined she had not established 

credible RFC limitations regarding her headaches. The factual findings underlying 

the VA’s migraine-headache-disability rating, including Zuba-Ingram’s having 

experienced 3 headaches every three to four months, were consistent with the 

ALJ’s conclusion she could work. Accordingly, we hold that the Commissioner’s 

decision is supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 14-10713 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 16 of 16