IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20786

Summary Calendar

REGINA YOUNG, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CV-2810

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Regina Young, a social security claimant, appeals the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment and affirmance of a final decision by the 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying 

her application for supplemental security income. Because we conclude that 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 26, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20786 Document: 00514009425 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2017
No. 16-20786

2

the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits is supported by substantial 

evidence, we AFFIRM. 

I. Background

In 2008, Young applied for supplemental security income, claiming

disability due to diabetes, high blood pressure, fibromyalgia, arthritis, carpal 

tunnel syndrome, back problems, and “residuals” from an attack. Relevant to 

this appeal,1 Young testified that her back keeps her from standing or sitting 

for prolonged periods. Young had a collection of medical records including 

physical examinations, a neurosurgical examination (finding no need for 

surgery), a computed tomography (“CT”) study, and magnetic resonance 

imaging (“MRI”) studies.

Since 2003, Young was also seeing her Chiropractor, Michael Ungerank. 

In 2008, he noted that her rotator cuff in the right shoulder probably needed 

surgery. He treated her for weakness and pain associated with her neck, 

shoulders, lower back, hips, and legs. In 2014, he wrote a letter stating that 

Young had a “chronic lower back condition and cannot do any heavy lifting of 

more than 10 pounds or do any excessive bending or getting up or down.” 

The Commissioner denied Young’s application administratively, and 

pursuant to Young’s request, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held a 

hearing. During the hearing, Young testified that she had limited range of 

motion in her shoulder and had never received surgery. As to her back, Young 

testified that there had been little improvement, despite her treatment under 

the Affordable Care Act. She testified that she had carpal tunnel syndrome 

but that it had improved in her right hand after surgery. She also said that 

 

1 Because Young only appeals the ALJ’s ruling as to her physical impairments, we do 

not summarize the medical records regarding any other impairments.

 Case: 16-20786 Document: 00514009425 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2017
No. 16-20786

3

she could stand for thirty minutes, walk for about ten to fifteen minutes, sit for 

thirty to forty-five minutes, and lift and carry ten pounds. 

The ALJ issued a decision denying Young’s claim. The ALJ found that 

Young was not disabled because, based on her residual functional capacity, she 

could perform “the requirements of representative occupations such as a 

cleaner.” 

After the finding of no disability, Young requested review from the 

Appeals Council, which denied her request, rendering the ALJ decision final. 

Young sought review in federal district court pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social 

Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties consented to proceed before a

magistrate judge, who issued an order granting the Commissioner’s motion for 

summary judgment and recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be 

affirmed. Young now appeals.2

II. Standard of Review

We review a denial of social security benefits “only to ascertain whether 

(1) the final decision is supported by substantial evidence and (2) whether the 

Commissioner used the proper legal standards to evaluate the evidence.” 

Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). A final decision is supported 

by substantial evidence if it is based upon relevant evidence sufficient to 

establish that a reasonable mind could reach the same conclusion reached by 

the Commissioner. Id.

 

2 Young’s efforts to receive social security income based on these ailments has a long 

history. She first applied in 2009. The Commissioner denied that application, and an ALJ 

issued an unfavorable decision, which the Appeals Council remanded. An ALJ held a second 

hearing and again determined that Young was not disabled. The United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas reversed and remanded that decision. On 

November 2014, for the third time, an ALJ rendered a decision that Young was not disabled. 

It is this third decision that Young now appeals.

 Case: 16-20786 Document: 00514009425 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/26/2017
No. 16-20786

4

III. Discussion

Young contends that the ALJ’s finding of no disability is reversible error 

because it is not supported by substantial evidence. In summary, she argues 

that the ALJ failed to give sufficient credence to her chiropractor’s conclustion 

that she has a chronic lower back condition and cannot lift more than ten 

pounds or do any excessive bending—a finding that is inconsistent with the 

ALJ’s conclusion that Young can perform light work as a cleaner. Specifically, 

Young asserts that the ALJ erred in giving “little weight” to Ungerank’s 

opinion solely because he is a chiropractor. 

The ALJ is responsible for evaluating a claimant’s residual functional 

capacity by reviewing all of the medical findings and other evidence. See Villa 

v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1023 (5th Cir. 1990). But federal regulations create 

a broad framework for such judges to follow in making their decisions. The 

regulations classify evidence from medical sources into two categories: 

“acceptable medical sources” and “other sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(a), (d)

(2013).3 “Acceptable medical sources” include licensed physicians and certain 

other listed medical practitioners, but not chiropractors. § 416.913(a)(1)–(5). 

“Other sources” are the remaining sources not listed above, including 

chiropractors. § 416.913(d)(1). “Medical opinions are statements from 

physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect 

judgments about the nature and severity of . . . impairment(s) . . . .” § 

416.927(a)(2). Furthermore, “[o]nly ‘acceptable medical sources’ can establish 

the existence of a medically determinable impairment, give medical opinions, 

 

3 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.913 and 416.927, the regulations most relevant to this appeal, were 

reformulated effective March 27, 2017. However, in this opinion we refer to the 2013 

regulations, which applied at the time of the ALJ’s determination, rather than to their 

recently-updated 2017 versions.

 Case: 16-20786 Document: 00514009425 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/26/2017
No. 16-20786

5

and be considered treating sources whose medical opinions may be entitled to 

controlling weight.” Thibodeaux v. Astrue, 324 F. App’x 440, 445 (5th Cir. 

2009).4 “Other sources” can be used to support findings of severity of an

impairment and effect on ability to work. § 416.913(d); see also Porter v. 

Barnhart, 200 F. App’x 317, 319 (5th Cir. 2006).

“We have long held that ‘ordinarily the opinions, diagnoses, and medical 

evidence of a treating physician who is familiar with the claimant’s injuries, 

treatments, and responses should be accorded considerable weight in 

determining disability.’” Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir. 

1994) (quoting Scott v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 482, 485 (5th Cir. 1985)). An ALJ 

may, however, assign such an opinion little or no weight if there is good cause

not to—for example, if the opinion is brief or conclusory, not supported by 

acceptable clinical laboratory diagnostic techniques, or otherwise unsupported 

by the evidence. Id. Although an ALJ may assign little weight to an 

“acceptable medical source” only upon a showing of good cause, we have not 

imposed a good cause requirement to discount medical opinions from “other

sources.” 

The record before the ALJ did not contain any opinions from “acceptable 

medical sources” that Young was disabled. Ungerank is the only source of any 

kind to conclude that Young was not capable of light work. He falls in the 

category of “other source.” Therefore, the ALJ was not required to determine 

whether there was good cause to assign Ungerank’s opinion little weight. 

Nevertheless, the ALJ did take Ungerank’s opinion into account when making 

his determination; he merely found other evidence in the record was more 

convincing. Bearing in mind that our role is not to reweigh the evidence or 

 

4 Although Thibodeaux is not “controlling precedent,” it “may be [cited as] persuasive 

authority.” Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4).

 Case: 16-20786 Document: 00514009425 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/26/2017
No. 16-20786

6

substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ, we conclude that substantial 

evidence supports the ALJ’s determination regarding Young’s residual 

functional capacity as well as the ALJ’s ultimate determination that Young 

was not disabled. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-20786 Document: 00514009425 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/26/2017