FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT HC IR C UIT J UNE 5 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12916 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 4 6 6 - CV - FTM - 3 3 SPC K U D R E T S . O G R A N A J A , P la in tif f- A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C O M M I S S I O N E R O F S O C I A L S E C U R I T Y , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________

( Ju n e 5, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A R N E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: K udr e tO gr a na

j aa ppe a l s f

r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de ra f f i r m i ng the2

a d m in is tr a tiv e la w ju d g e ’s d e n ia l o f h is a p p lic a tio n fo rs u p p le m e n ta l s e c u r ity i ncom e. O granaj a c on t ends thatthe A L J e rr ed by (1) f i nd i ng thathe di d n otsuff er f r om as e ve r e m e nt a l i m pa i r m e nt ; ( 2) r e l y i ng on the a s s e s s m e nt s of t w o none x a m in in g p h y s ic ia n s in d e te r m in in g th a t h e h a d th e r e s id u a l f u n c tio n a l c a p a c ity for aful l ra ng e of m edi um w ork; and (3) di sr egar di ng the thi rd pron g o f our three pa r ts t a nda r d fora s s e s s i ng ac l a i m a nt ’ s s ubj e c ti ve c om pl a i nt s of pa i n. W e r e vi e w as oc i a l s e c ur i ty c a s e forw he the rthe C om m i s s i one r ’ s de c i s i on i s s up po rt ed by subst anti al evi dence and w hether the corre ctl egal st andards w er e appl i ed. S ee L ew i s v. C al l ahan, 12 5 F . 3d 14 36 , 14 39 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). W e m ay no tdeci de the fa ct s a new , re w ei gh the evi dence, or substi tut e our j ud gm entfor that o f th e C o m m is s io n e r ; in s te a d w e “m u s t d e fe rto th e C o m m is s io n e r ’s d e c is io n if it is s u p p o r te d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e .” M ile s v . C h a te r , 8 4 F .3 d 1 3 9 7 , 1 4 0 0 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 96 ). “ S ub st anti al evi dence i s def i ned as m ore than a sc i nt i l l a, i . e. , evi dence tha tm us tdo m or e tha n c r e a t e as us pi c i on of the e xi s t e nc e of

the fa c tt o be es t abl i shed, and such rel evantevi dence as a r ea sonabl e per son w ou l d acc eptas a d e q u a te to s u p p o r t th e c o n c lu s io n .” F o o te v . C h a te r , 6 7 F .3 d 1 5 5 3 , 1 5 6 0 ( 1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) ( in tern al citati o n o m itted ). W e c o n clu d e th at th e C o m m issio n er ’s d e c i s i o n i s s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n ti a l e v i d e n c e , a n d w e a f f i r m.3 I. A c l a i m a ntbe a r s the bur de n of pr ovi ng tha the ha s as e ve r e i m pa i r m e ntor com bi nati on of i m pai rm ent s. Jones v. A pfel , 19 0 F . 3d 12 24 , 12 28 (11th C i r. 1999) . “ [ A ] n i m pa i r m e ntc a n be c ons i de r e d a s ‘ nots e ve r e ’ onl y i f i ti s as l i ght abnor m a l i ty w hi c h ha s s uc h am i ni m a l e f f e c ton the i ndi vi dua l tha ti tw oul d notbe expect ed t o i nt er fe re w i th the i nd i vi du al ’ s abi l i ty t o w ork, i rr es pecti ve of age, educati on , or w ork exp er i ence . ” B ra dy v. H ec kl er , 72 4 F . 2d 91 4, 92 0 (11 th C i r. 19 84 ). S ubj ec ti ve com pl ai nt s are i nsuffi ci entt o est abl i sh a di sabi l i ty. S ee E dw ar ds v. S ul l i van, 93 7 F . 2d 58 0, 58 4 (11 th C i r. 19 91 ); 20 C . F . R . § 4 16 . 92 9(a) . W e r e j e c tO gr a na

j a ’ s c ont e nti on tha tthe A L J e rr e d i n f i ndi ng he di d not s u f fe rf r o m as e v e r e m e n ta l h e a lth im p a ir m e n t. T h e A L J fo u n d : T h e c la im a n t a lle g e d a t th e h e a r in g th a t h e is d e p r e s s e d . H e c la im e d th a t h e d o e s n o t w a n t to d o a n y th in g . H ow e ve r , the r e i s no obj e c ti ve m e di c a l s uppor ti n the re cord thatthe cl ai m anthas a“ se vere ” m ent al i m pa i r m e nt . T he r e i s no i ndi c a ti on i n the r e c or d tha the h a s s o u g h t o u t o rr e c e iv e d p s y c h o lo g ic a l o rp s y c h ia tr ic tre atm ent . In fa ct , the re cord show s thatthe on l y m ent al e v a l u a ti o n th a tth e c l a i ma n th a s u n d e r g o n e i s ao n e - ti me psyc ho l og i ca l eval uati on thatw as cond uct ed by D r. N ich o las A n th o n y . . . at th e r eq u es t o f c laim an t’ s a tto r n e y . T h e r e p o r t o f

th e e v a lu a tio n w a s h ig h ly subj ec ti ve and n otsupp ort ed by any s i gn i fi ca ntcl i ni ca l f i ndi ngs , a s D r . A nthony s t a t e d tha thi s s t a t e m e nttha tthe c la im a n t “is s u f

fe r in g f r o m ad e p r e s s io n o f

c lin ic a lly sig n ifican t p ro p o rtio n s” w as su p p o rted b y th e c laim an t’ s “ r e por ta nd the obs e r va ti ons of hi s c hi l dr e n. ” T he doc t or4 w en t o n fo r tw o p ar ag ra p h s in d es cr ib in g th e c laim an t’ s su bj ect i v e co m p l ai n t s an d co n cl u d ed fro m th ese s ubj e c ti ve c om pl a i nt s tha tthe c l a i m a ntha s aG A P of on l y 45. H ow ever , the eval uati on show ed thathe had focuse d tho ug htcont ent , w as ori ent ed t o p er son, pl ac e a n d tim e , a n d h a d in ta c t m e m o r y , r e a s o n ab le ju d g m e n t, a v e r a g e in te llig e n c e a n d lo g ic a l th o u g h t p r o c e s s e s . . . . T he A L J poi nt e d outtha t“ [ o] ne s ol e m e nt a l e va l ua ti on tha ti s ba s e d on s ubj e c ti ve com pl ai nt s a nd no ton si gn i fi ca ntcl i ni ca l fi nd i ng s i s notsuff i ci entt o est abl i sh that the cl ai m anthas am ent al prob l em thatre sul t s i n si gn i fi ca ntl i m i t ati on s, as nei ther the c l a i m a nt ’ s a l l e ga ti ons noruns uppor t e d di a gnos e s a r e s uf f i c i e nt , i n a nd of them se l ves, t o est abl i sh the exi st ence or degree of a n i m pai rm ent . ” F or that re as on , the A L J gave D r. A ntho ny’ s opi ni on s no w ei gh tand thu s r ej ec t ed O g r a n a ja ’s c o n te n tio n th a t h e s u f fe r e d f r o m as e v e r e m e n ta l h e a lth im p a ir m e n t. T he re cord do es no tcont ai n any other e vi dence i nd i ca ti ng a hi st ory of m ent al i l l ne s s ortr e a tm e ntform e nt a l pr obl e m s , a nd s ubs t a nti a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the A L J’ s dec i si on thatO granaj a fai l ed t o p rove thathe suff er s f rom a s ever e m ent al h e a lth im p a ir m e n t. A dd i ti on al l y, O granaj a’ s argum entthatthe A L J fai l ed t o con si der hi s m ent al c o n d i ti o n i n c o mb i n a ti o n wi th h i s o th e ri mp a i r me n t s i s wi th o u tme r i t . Th e ALJ s pe c i f i c a l l y i de nti f

i e d a nd c ons i de r e d both of O gr a na j a ’ s c l a i m s of

i m pa i r m e nta nd det er m i ned thaton l y one of the i m pai rm ent s, the l um bar herni at ed di sc , w as5

s e v e r e . S u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts th e A L J ’s d e c is io n to g iv e “n o w e ig h t” to D r. A ntho ny’ s e val uati on , and the re m ai nd erof the re cord fai l s t o sup po rt O g ran aj a’ s su bj ect i v e co m p l ai n tth ath e su ffered fro m d ep ressi o n . U n d er th o se c ir c u m s ta n c e s th e A L J w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to c o n s id e rth e m e n ta l c o n d itio n in c o m b in a tio n w ith O g r a n a ja ’s o th e rim p a ir m e n ts .

II.

“ [T ] h e o p i n i o n o f a treat i n g p h ysi ci an i s en ti t l ed t o su b st an ti al w ei g h tu n l ess g o o d cau se ex i st s fo r n o th eed i n g th e treat i n g p h ysi ci an ’ s d i ag n o si s. ” E d w ard s, 937 F . 2d a t583. W e ha ve found “ good c a us e ” t o a f for d l e s s w e i ghtt o atr e a ti ng phy s i c i a n’ s opi ni on w he r e the opi ni on w a s c onc l us or y ori nc ons i s t e ntw i th the ph ys i ci an’ s ow n m edi ca l re cords or w here the evi dence s up po rt ed a c on trary f i ndi ng. S e e L e w i s , 125 F . 3d a t1440. T a ke n a l one , the opi ni on of anone xa m i ni ng phy s i c i a n doe s notc ons ti tut e s ubs t a nti a l e vi de nc e t o s uppor tthe C om m i ss i on er ’ s dec i si on . S w i nd l e v. S ul l i van, 91 4 F . 2d 22 2, 22 6 n . 3 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 0 ) . H o w e v e r , th e A L J m a y c o n s id e rth e r e p o r ts a n d a s s e s s m e n ts o f s ta te agency ph ys i ci ans a s e xp er top i ni on s. 20 C . F . R . § 4 16 . 92 7(f) (2)( i ). T h e A L J d id n o t errin d isco u n ti n g D r. D iaz’s o p in io n re g ar d in g O g ra n aja’s phy s i c a l c a pabi l i ti e s be c a us e s ubs t a nti a l e vi de nc e i ndi c a t e s tha ti ti s i nc ons i s t e nt w ith h e re x a m in a tio n f

in d in g s , a s w e ll a s o th e re x a m in a tio n r e p o r ts in th e r e c o r d .6

S ee L ew i s, 12 5 F . 3d at14 40 . S peci fi ca l l y, D r. D i az ’ s e xam i nati on fi nd i ng s for her o n e-ti m e n eu ro l o g i cal co n su l t ati o n w i th O g ran aj a i n d i cat e a n o rm al m en t al st atu s, no rm al se nsory r es po nses , a norm al gai t , and m ot or ski l l s a nd t endo n ref l exes that clas h w ith h erre co m m en d ed li m it atio n s o n O g ra n aja’s a b il ity to w o rk . D r. D iaz’s re com m endati on s are al so contra di ct ed by other e xam i nati on s i n the re cord that in d icate n o ab n o rm ality. H ero p in io n is li k ew ise d iscr ed it ed b y O g ra n aja’s s tr i ki ng l a c k of

tr e a tm e nthi s t or y r e ve a l e d by aga p i n the m e di c a l r e c or ds f r om Ju n e 2 5 , 1 9 9 7 u n ti l A u g u st 2 1 , 2 0 0 1 . A s a re su lt , th e A L J g av e D r. D iaz’s e x a m in a tio n f

in d in g s n o w e ig h t. T h e A L J a rr iv e d a t h is d e c is io n a f te rc o n s id e r in g th e r e c o r d in its e n tir e ty a n d d i d n o tr e l y s o l e l y o n th e o p i n i o n o f th e s t a t e a g e n c y p h y s i c i a n s . Th e ALJ found tha t , unl i ke D r . D i a z ’ s opi ni ons , the e xpe r topi ni ons of the non- e xa m i ni ng st at e ag en cy p h ysi ci an s w ere su p p o rt ed b y an d co n si st en tw i th th e reco rd as a w hol e . U nde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s , s ubs t a nti a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the A L J ’ s de c i s i on t o assi g n g reatw ei g h tt o th o se o p i n i o n s. III. W e r e qui r e ac l a i m a ntw ho s e e ks “ t o e s t abl i s h adi s abi l i ty ba s e d on t e s ti m ony of

pa i n a nd othe rs y m pt om s ” t o s how : “ ( 1) e vi de nc e of a n unde r l y i ng m e di c a l c ondi ti on; a nd ( 2) e i the r( a ) obj e c ti ve m e di c a l e vi de nc e c onf i r m i ng the7

se veri ty of the al l eged pai n; or (b) thatthe obj ec ti vel y det er m i ned m edi ca l c ondi ti on c a n r e a s onabl y be e xpe c t e d t o gi ve r i s e t o the c l a i m e d pa i n. ” W i l s on v. B a r n h a r t, 2 8 4 F .3 d 1 2 1 9 , 1 2 2 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A n A L J m u s t a r tic u la te “e x p lic it a nd a de qua t e r e a s ons ” i n or de rt o di s c r e di ts ubj e c ti ve t e s ti m ony . I d. F a i l ur e t o do s o “ r e qui r e s , a s am a tt e rof l a w , tha tthe t e s ti m ony be a c c e pt e d a s tr ue . ” I d. W e do n o t r e q u ir e th e A L J to “s p e c if ic a lly r e fe rto e v e r y p ie c e o f e v id e n c e in h is d e c i s i o n , ” s o l o n g a s th e d e c i s i o n i s s u f f i c i e n tt o a l l o w u s t o c o n c l u d e th a tth e ALJ c ons i de r e d the c l a i m a nt ’ s m e di c a l c ondi ti on a s aw hol e . D y e rv. B a r nha r t , 395 F . 3d 12 06 , 12 11 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). O granaj a’ s c on t enti on thatthe A L J fai l ed t o con si der thathi s m edi ca l c ondi ti on c oul d r e a s onabl y be e xpe c t e d t o gi ve r i s e t o the c l a i m e d pa i n i s w i thout m e r it. T h e r e c o r d s h o w s th a t w h ile O g r a n a jas u f fe r e d f r o m ah e r n ia te d d is c in 1 9 9 7 , s i n c e th a tti me h i s b a c ki n j u r y h a s i mp r o v e d c o n s i d e r ab l y . Th e ALJ c ons i de r e d the fol l ow i ng i n di s c r e di ti ng O gr a na j a ’ s c l a i m s of

pa i n: ( 1) r e c e nt m e d ic a l r e p o r ts s h o w in g O g r a n a ja ’s c o n d itio n a s n o r m a l; ( 2 ) th e fo u ry e a rg a p in tre atm enthi st ory; (3) r ef usal t o u nd er go re com m ended surgery; (4) am edi ca l r e por ti ndi c a ti ng tha ta ny pa i n w a s ge ne r a l l y c ontr ol l e d by a na l ge s i c m e di c a ti on; ( 5 ) O g r a n a

ja ’s a d m is s io n th a t h e c o n tin u e d to lo o kfo rw o rkw h ic h s h o w s h e fe e ls c a pabl e of

w orki ng; a nd ( 6) tha tthe i nc ons i s t e nc i e s be t w e e n hi s a ppl i c a ti on a nd8

t es ti m on y “ l ends further dou bt[t o] hi s c re di bi l i ty. ” T he A L J c on si dere d O granaj a’ s m edi ca l cond i ti on i n i t s e nt i re ty a nd spec i fi ca l l y i dent i fi ed evi dence tha tdi s c r e di t s O gr a na

j a ’ s c om pl a i nt s . T he A L J a ppl i e d the pr ope rl e ga l s t a nda r d, a n d th e d e c i s i o n i s s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n ti a l e v i d e n c e ; w e a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.