FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 10, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 73 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 9- cv -0 16 55 -GJK LAURI J. FORR ESTER, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us

COMM ISSI ONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 10 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Lauri F orres te r ap pe al s, wi th th e as si st an ce o f co un se l, the di st ric t co urt’sor de r affi rm in g t he So ci al Securit y Adm in is tra ti on ’s (“ ag en cy ’s”) d en ia l o f he r ap pl ic at io n fo r di sabi li ty ins ur an ce b en efi ts (“ DIB”) an d s up pl em en ta l s ecu rit y in co m e (“ SSI” ), 42 U.S.C. §§ 40 5( g) an d 1 38 3( c)(3 ). Fir st , sh e arg ue s tha t the adm in is tra ti ve law ju dg e (“ ALJ”) erre d b y fai li ng to ad equa te ly exp la inth e wei gh t gi ve n t o v ari ou s m ed ic al op in io ns ; n otcle arl y art ic ul at in g t he reas on s fo r gi vi ng le ss weig htto th e o pi ni on of atre at in g p hysic ia n; an d c red it in g t he op in io ns of no n- tre at in g s ou rces ov er a treat in g o ne , witho utsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Add it io na ll y , sh e al so arg ue s tha t the ALJ erre d b y om it ti ng ex pr es s re fere nc e to he r m od erat e d iff

ic ul ti es inco nc en tra ti on , per si st en ce, o r pa ce, i n t he hypo th et ic al to th e v oc at io na l ex pe rt ( “ VE”), su chth atth e ALJ’s rel ia nc e o n t he VE’ s te st im on y , to co nc lu de th atjob s ex is te d i n t he nati on al eco no m y whi chsh e co ul d pe rfo rm , was n otba se d o n s ub st an ti al ev id en ce. I. Ina so ci al sec ur ity

cas e, we rev ie w th e ag en cy ’s leg al co nc lu si on s de no vo , an d i ts factua l fi nd in gs to de te rm in e whe th er the y are s up po rte d b y

subs tant ia l ev id en ce. In gr am v. Co mm’r o f S oc . Sec
. , 49 6 F .3d12 53 , 12 60 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Subs tant ia l ev id en ce i s d efi ne d a s “ su chrel ev an t ev id en ce as a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ldacce ptas a de qu at e to supp ort a c on cl us io n.” Mil es v. Ch at er , 84 F.3d13 97 , 14 00 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). W e d o n otrewei gh th e ev id en ce o r subs ti tu te ou r own jud gm en t fo r th atof the ag en cy . Id. “ If the [ag en cy ]’ s d eci si on is supp orte d b y subs tant ia l ev id en ce we m us t af firm , eve n i f th e p ro of

pre po nd erat es ag ai ns t i t.” Id
. 2The So ci al Secu rit y Reg ul at io ns ou tl in e a fi ve -s te p, “ se qu en ti al ” ev al ua ti on pr oc es s u se d t o d et erm in e whe th er a cl ai m an t i s d is ab le d. See Phi ll ip s v. Barnh ar t , 35 7 F .3d12 32 , 12 37 –3 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (de sc rib in g fi ve -s te p p ro ces s) ; 20 C.F.R. § § 4 04 .15 20 (a)( 4) (i) -(v ), 41 6.9 20 (a)( 1) , (4) (i) -(v ). If anALJ fi nd s a cl ai m an t d is ab le d o r no t d is ab le d a t an y gi ve n s te p, the ALJ d oe s n otgo on to th e ne xtst ep . 20 C.F.R. § 41 6.9 20 (a)( 4) . Here, the ALJ fo un d t ha t Fo rres te r was no t en ga ge d i n s ub st an ti al ga in fu l act iv ity an d h adsev ere i m

pa irments , bu t tha t the im pa irments di d n otm eetor equa l a l is te d i m

pa irment. Whenth athapp en s, the ALJ m us t the n d et erm in e, at st ep fou r, whe th er the cla im an t h as th e res idua l fu nc ti on in g c ap aci ty (“ RFC” ) to pe rfo rm he r pa strel ev an t wo rk . 20 C.F.R. § § 4 16 .92 0( e) an d (f ). Whe re, as he re, th e ALJ an swe rs th is inth e n eg at iv e, itpro ceed s t o c on si de r, atst ep fiv e, whe th er th e cl ai m an t’s RF C al lo ws h er t o p erfo rm workth atex is ts inth e n at io na l eco no m y . 20 C.F.R. § 41 6.9 20 (g ). RFC i s “ anass es sm en t, b as edup on all of t he rel ev an t ev id en ce, o f a cl ai m an t’s re m ai ni ng ab il ity to do workde sp it e [h er] im pa irments .” Lewis v. Ca llah an , 12 5 F .3d14 36 , 14 40 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Whe n d et erm in in g acla im an t’s RFC, the ALJ m

us t g iv e th e o pi ni on of atre at in g p hysic ia n “ subs ta nt ia l o r co ns id erab le weig htun le ss go odcau se is sh own to th e co nt rary.” Phi ll ip s , 35 7 F.3 d a t 1 24 0 (quo ta ti on om it te d) . “ Goo d c au se ex is ts when th e: (1) tre at in g ph y si ci an ’s op in io n was no t b ol st eredby the ev id en ce; (2) ev id en ce s up po rte d a co nt rary fin di ng ; o r (3 ) tr eat in g p hysic ia n’s o pi ni on was c on cl us ory or 3in co ns is te ntwith t he do ct or ’s ownm ed ic al reco rd s.” W in sc he l v. Co mm’r o

f S oc . Se c. , 63 1 F .3d11 76 , 11 78 –7 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on om it te d) . W e h av e h el d t ha t an ALJ d oe s n otne edto gi ve a tr eat in g p hysic ia n’s o pi ni on co ns id erab le weig htif e vi de nc e o f th e cl ai m an t’s d ai ly acti vi ti es co ntrad ic t the op in io n. Se e Phi ll ip s , 35 7 F .3dat 1 24 1. Th e o pi ni on s o f no n- ex am in in g, no n- rev ie win g p hysic ians , are en ti tl edto li tt le weig htwhen co nt rary to tho se of a n ex am in in g p hysic ian, an d, t ak enalo ne , th ey do no t co ns ti tu te subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Se e S pe nc er ex r el . Sp en cer

v. Heckl er , 76 5 F .2d10 90 , 10 94 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). Howev er, the ALJ m ay

rejectan y

m ed ic al op in io n, i f th e ev id en ce s up po rts a co nt rary fin di ng . Sr

yo ck v. Hec kl er , 76 4 F .2d83 4, 8 35 (11 thCir .19 85 ). The ALJ m

us t s ta te with p art ic ul ari ty the weig htgi ve n t o d iff eren t m ed ic al op in io ns an d t he reas on s fo r do in g s o. Sh ar fa rzv. Bowe n , 82 5 F .2d27 8, 2 79 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 7) . Howev er, we h av e fo un d n o re ve rs ib le erro r whe n t he ALJ art ic ul at edsp eci fic reas on s fo r de cl in in g t o g iv e th e tr eat in g p hysic ia n’s o pi ni on co nt ro ll in g wei gh t, an d t he reas on s wer e supp orte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Moo re v. Barnh ar t , 40 5 F .3d12 08 , 12 12 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). The ALJ d idno t err in an y of t he fou r res pe ct s Fo rres te r ha s p res erv edfor rev ie w. Firs t, the ALJ p ro pe rly exp la in edth e wei gh t g iv ento di ffer en t m ed ic al op in io ns . The ALJ n ot edth atDr. Gos s’s o pi ni on s co ul d “ no t b e g iv enco nt ro ll in g weig ht ,” an d t ha t the co ns ul ta ti ve an d n on -ex am in in g p hysic ians ’ op in io ns were

“ gi ve n s ig ni fic an t wei gh t.” Se e S ha rf ar z , 82 5 F .2dat 2 79 . Seco nd , th e ALJ cl earl y art ic ul at edreas on s fo r no t g iv in g Go ss ’s op in io n c on tro ll in g wei gh t wh en 4itst at edth atGos s’s o pi ni onwas n otsupp orte d b y th e m ed ic al reco rd , andth e reco rdde m on st rat edth atFo rres te r di d n othave res idua l ca rd ia c, va sc ul ar, o r pu lm on ary pr ob le m s tha t wo ul d re su ltinth e d eg ree o f li m it at io n Go ss in di cat ed . Se e Mo or e , 40 5 F .3dat 1 21 2. Th e ALJ cl earl y art ic ul at edit s re as on s fo r gi vi ng si gn ifi can t wei gh t t o t he co ns ul ta ti ve an d n on -ex am in in g p hysic ia ns ’ op in io ns , whe n i t s ta te d t ha t the ir o pi ni on s wer e m or e co ns is te ntwith t he m ed ic al ev id en ce. 1 Thi rd , th e ALJ d idno t err by cred it in g t he op in io ns of n on -tr eat in g s ou rces ov er tho se of t he tre at in g p hysic ia n, Dr. Go ss . The ALJ m us t g iv e th e tr eat in g ph y si ci an ’s op in io n “ subs tant ia l o r co ns id erab le weig ht un less go od ca us e is sh ow n t o the co ntra ry ,” whi chhapp en edhe re. Se e Phi ll ip s , 35 7 F .3dat 1 24 0 (quo tati onom it te d) (em

ph as is ad de d) . The ALJ d et erm in edth atGos s’s o pi ni on was no t b ol st eredby the ev id en ce an d t he ev id en ce s up po rte d aco nt rary fin di ng . Se e W in sc he l , 63 1 F .3dat 1 17 8– 79 . As no te d abo ve , th e ALJ d et erm in edth at , co ns is te ntwith t he reco rd , Forres te r di d n othave res idua l ca rd ia c, va sc ul ar, o r pu lm on ary pr ob le m s tha t wo ul d re su ltinth e d eg ree o f work l im it at io ns whi chDr. Gos s i nd ic at ed . Furt he rm or e, th e ALJ d idno t n eedto gi ve a tr eat in g p hysic ia n’s op in io n c on si de rab le weig htif e vi de nc e o f th e cl ai m an t’s d ai ly acti vi ti es co nt rad ic te d t he op in io n, wh ic h o ccu rredhe re, b as edon Fo rres te r’s te st im on y an d With reg ard to the RF C assessment, For rester mentions substantial evidence only once 1 in her initial counseled brief, a rguing that the AL J ’s re liance on non- treating state consultants taken a lone did not constitute substantial evidence , though she raises a g eneral substantial evidenc e argument in her reply brief. Conseque ntly , For rester abandone d a g eneral re view of the RFC assessment for

substantial evidence . See U nited States v. Je rnigan , 341 F.3d 1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003) (issues must be unambiguously demar cate d); Gree nbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster , 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 ( 11th Cir. 1989) (passingref ere nce insuff

icient); Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol. , 516 F.3d 955, 972- 73 (11th Cir. 2008) (ra ising a n argument in a reply brief is insuffic ient). 5he r ab il ity

to pe rfo rm

va rio us tas ks at h er Ma rch 20 07 co ns ul ta ti ve ex am in at io n. Se e Phi ll ip s , 35 7 F .3dat 1 24 1. Th eref or e, th e ALJ h ad“ go odcau se ” to no t g iv e Dr. Gos s’s o pi ni on co ns id erab le weig htan d d idno t err. Fi na ll y , th e ALJ d idno t err by relying on th e o pi ni on s o f th e n on -tr eat in g ph y si ci an s, t ak enalo ne , ina way th atlef t i ts de ci si on un supp orte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. The ev id en ce s up po rte d aco nt rary con cl us io n t o Dr. Go ss ’s op in io n, an d t he ALJ was no t p ro hi bi te d fr om reac hi ng th atco nc lu si on si m pl y be cau se no n- tre at in g p hysic ians als o re ach edit . Se e S ry oc k, 76 4 F .2dat 8 35 . The refo re, the ALJ p ro pe rly exp la in edth e wei gh t i t g av e to va rio us m ed ic al op in io ns , cle arl y

art ic ul at edit s re as on s, an d d idno t err by cred it in g t he op in io ns of no n- tre at in g s ou rces ov er a treat in g o ne . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm inth es e res pe ct s. II. As n ot edab ov e, if

th e cl ai m an t ca nn otpe rfo rm he r pa strel ev an t wo rk , th e ALJ m us t the n d et erm in e, atst ep fiv e o f th e se qu en ti al pro ces s, wh ethe r he r RFC al lo ws h er t o p erfo rm

ot he r work t ha t ex is ts inth e n at io na l ec on omy . 20 C.F.R. § 4 16 .92 0( g) . At st ep fiv e, th e Co m m is si on er b ears th e b ur de n t o s ho w th ata si gn ifi can t n um

be r of job s ex is t i n t he na ti on al eco no m y , whi chth e cl ai m an t ca n pe rfo rm . Phi ll ip s , 35 7 F .3dat 1 23 9; 20 C.F.R. § § 4 04 .15 20 (a)( 4) (v ), 41 6.9 20 (a)( 4) (v ). An ALJ m ay m ak e th is de te rm in at io n e ithe r by app lying th e Med ic al Voca ti on al Gui de li ne s o r by ob ta in in g t he tes ti m on y of avo cat io na l ex pe rt. Phi ll ip s , 35 7 F .3dat 1 23 9– 40 . “ Inord er fo r a v oc at io na l ex pe rt’s 6te st im on y

to co ns ti tu te subs tant ia l ev id en ce, the ALJ m us t p os e a h y

po th et ic al qu es ti on whi chco m

pr is es all of t he cla im an t’s i m pa irments .” W

il so n v . Barnh ar t , 28 4 F .3d12 19 , 12 27 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). The ALJis no t re qu ire d t o i nc lu de fin di ng s in th e h y po th et ic al th atth e ALJ h as fou ndto be un supp orte d. Cr aw fo rd v. Co mm’r o f S oc . Sec
. , 36 3 F .3d11 55 , 11 61 (11 thCir . 20 04 ). An ALJdo es no t g en eral ly accou ntfora cl ai m an t’s l im it at io ns in co nc en tra ti on , per si st en ce, o r pa ce b y res tri ct in g t he hypo th et ic al qu es ti on to si m pl e, ro ut in e ta sk s o r un sk il le d wo rk . Se e W in sc he l , 63 1 F .3dat 1 18 0- 81 . Howev er, “ whe nmedi ca l ev iden ce de m on strat es th ata cl ai m an t ca n e ng ag e in si m pl e, ro ut in e ta sk s o r un sk il le d wo rk de sp it e li m it at io ns inco nc en tra ti on , pe rs is te nc e, orpa ce, . . . lim it in g t he hypo th et ic al to in cl ud e o nl y un sk il le d wo rk su ffi ci en tl y

acco un ts for

su chli m it at io ns ,” if

th e ALJ i nd ic at es th atth e m ed ic al ev id en ce s ug ge st s tha t the ab il ity to workis un affe ct ed . Se e id
. (em ph as is ad de d) . Add it io na ll y , hypot he ti cal qu es ti on s ad equa te ly accou ntfora cl ai m an t’s li mit at io ns inco nc en tra ti on , per si st en ce, o r pa ce wh enth e que st io ns ot he rwis e im pl ic it ly accou ntforth em . Se e id
. at 1 18 0. Here, the ALJ’s hypo th et ic al to th e VE pro pe rly com pr is ed , exp res sl y

or b y im pl ic at io n, al l o f Fo rres te r’s im pa irments , andth e VE’ s an swe r co ns ti tu te d subs tant ia l ev id en ce tha t Fo rres te r co ul d p erfo rm workinth e n at io na l ec on omy . Bec au se th e ALJ: (1) in di cat edth atth e m ed ic al ev id en ce s ug ge st edFo rres te r’s ab il ity to workwas u na ffec te d b y he r m od erat e li m it at io ns inco nc en tra ti on , pe rs is te nc e, orpa ce; an d (2 ) li m it edth e VE’ s h y po th et ic al to si m

pl e, ro ut in e, an d 7un sk il le d wo rk , th e ALJ’s h y po th et ic al to th e VE com pr is edall of F orres te r’s rel ev an t l im it at io ns . Con se qu en tl y , th e VE’ s an swe r, pr ov id in g e xa m pl es of va rio us job s s he co ul d p erfo rm , gi ve n h er l im it at io ns , con st itut edsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce fo r th e ALJ’s d et erm in at io n tha t Fo rres te r co ul d p erfo rm job s tha t ex is te d i n t he na ti on al eco no m y . The ALJ was no t re qu ire d t o i nc lu de li m it at io ns in th e h y po th et ic al th atitfou ndun supp orte d b y cred ib le ev id en ce, s uc h a s Go ss ’s de te rm in at io n t ha t Fo rres te r ha d m em ory is su es th atwou ldin te rfer e wit h co m pl et in g t as ks , or Fo rres te r’s te st im on y th athe r li m it at io ns inco nc en tra ti on were s ev ere. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . AFFIRMED. 2

For rester ’s re quest for oral argument is denied. 2 8