UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Miami Division 

Case Number: 20-22437-CIV-MORENO 

Tina Marie Villas, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of the 

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

I -------------------

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 

ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE LOUIS'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Both Plaintiff and Defendant have filed motions for summary judgment on this Social 

Security disability claim. The Court has made a de nova review of the issues that the objections 

to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation present, and being otherwise fully 

advised in the premises, it is ADJUDGED that United States Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis's 

Report and Recommendation is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. 

Plaintiffs claimed disability is back pain associated with scoliosis and nerve damage. 

After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge Clara H. Aranda determined that Plaintiff was not 

disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Specifically, the Administrative Law 

Judge held that Plaintiff did not have an impairment that matched or was equivalent to the 

impairments listed in the relevant Social Security regulations. To reach this conclusion, the 

Administrative Law Judge discounted Plaintiffs subjective symptom testimony as inconsistent 

with the medical evidence in the record. She also gave little weight to Plaintiffs treating 

physician's disability questionnaire, as inconsistent with the physician's own treatment records 

Case 1:20-cv-22437-FAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2021 Page 1 of 4
and notes. On the other hand, the Administrative Law Judge gave great weight to the opinions of 

the treating physician that were contained in his notes, and to the state agency medical 

consultants' opinions, as consistent with the objective medical evidence. She determined, based 

on the vocational expert's testimony, that Plaintiff could still perform past relevant work as a 

payroll clerk. 

Before this Court, Plaintiff raises three main arguments against Judge Aranda's decision. 

First, Plaintiff argues that she lacked good cause to extend little weight to her treating 

physician's opinion (Dr. Mouhanna). But, as Judge Louis explains, one of the grounds on which 

an administrative law judge may discredit a treating physician's opinion is that it is inconsistent 

with the physician's own notes or records. See Schink v. Commissioner of Social Security, 935 

F.3d 1245, 1262-63 (11th Cir. 2019). And here, Judge Aranda explained that Dr. Mouhanna's 

opinion contained in his disability questionnaire-that Plaintiff was limited to a range of light 

work and had various other physical limitations-was inconsistent with his treatment notes and 

the objective medical evidence in the record. 

Plaintiffs second line of attack is that the Administrative Law Judge erred in assigning 

great weight to the opinions of the state agency medical consultants. It is true that a nonexamining physician's opinion, standing alone, does not constitute substantial evidence. See 

Kemp v. Astrue, 308 F. App'x 423, 427 (11th Cir. 2009). But Judge Louis explains how the 

Administrative Law Judge here did not rely solely on a non-examining physician's opinion. 

Instead, she relied on two state agency physicians, Dr. Mouhanna's opinions contained in his 

treatment and medical notes, and the objective medical evidence in the record. Further, it is not 

error for an administrative law judge to rely on the reports of non-treating physicians when there 

2 

Case 1:20-cv-22437-FAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2021 Page 2 of 4
is good cause for not extending great weight to the treating physician's opinion. See Jones v. 

Bowen, 810 F.2d 1001, 1005 (11th Cir. 1986). 

Finally, Plaintiff argues that Judge Aranda erred by finding the Plaintiffs subjective 

symptom testimony in conflict with the medical evidence in the record. More specifically, 

Plaintiff contends that the Administrative Law Judge erred by finding conflict between Plaintiffs 

continued daily activities and her pain testimony, as well as by improperly disregarding 

Plaintiffs testimony about the side effects of her prescription medications. These arguments are 

unpersuasive, though. Magistrate Judge Louis explains that Judge Aranda highlighted 

substantial evidence contradicting Plaintiffs testimony. Judge Louis also explained that 

consideration of daily activities is proper in assessing subjective symptom testimony and that 

Plaintiff has not explained how her medicine's side effects should have impacted the the 

Administrative Law Judge's consideration of that testimony. 

The Report and Recommendation properly disposes of Plaintiffs arguments. Judge 

Aranda' s decision was supported by substantial evidence, and she did not commit any reversible 

legal error. Plaintiffs objections to the Report and Recommendation are largely duplicative of 

Plaintiffs arguments in her motion for summary judgment that are without merit. 

Accordingly, it is ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 1s 

DENIED and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 

/'--

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this If) of November 

2021. 

UNI~ ~RICT JUDGE 

FED~O A. MORENO 

Copies furnished to: 

3 

Case 1:20-cv-22437-FAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2021 Page 3 of 4
United States Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis 

Counsel of Record 

4 

Case 1:20-cv-22437-FAM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2021 Page 4 of 4