FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 15, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 13 04 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :1 0- cv -0 19 20 -CLS

PATRICI A ANN MILES, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SOCIAL SECURI TY ADMINISTRATION, COMM ISSI ONER, 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 North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 15 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Patric iaAnnMi le s ap pe al s, p ro se, the di st ric t co urt’s o rd er af firm in g t he So ci al Secu rit y

Adm in is tra ti on ’s (“ SSA”) d en ia l o f he r ap pl ic at io n fo r wid ow’s in su ran ce b en efi ts un de r 42 U.S.C. § 4 02 (e). Mi le s ar gu es th atth e Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e’s (“ ALJ”) de te rm in at io n re gard in g h er Ma rch 19 98 res idua l func ti on in g c ap aci ty (“ RFC” ) was no t s up po rte d b y subs tant ia l ev id en ce. Mo re 1 sp eci fic al ly, sh e co nt en ds th atth e ALJ erredby: (1) no t co ns id eri ng th e rec or d ev id en ce re fle ct in g thr ee d oc to rs ’ op in io ns th atsh e was un ab le to workdu e to se ve re d am ag e to he r ba ck ; (2 ) di sc ou nt in g t he op in io n o f he r ch iro pr act orth atsh e was co m pl et el y di sabl ed ; an d (3 ) fi nd in g t ha t h er t es ti m on y was n otful ly credi bl e. Ourrev ie w inth is cas e is li m it edto th e m at eri al s co nt ai ne d i n the cert ifi ed adm in is tra ti ve reco rd . W e rev ie w th e SSA’s l eg al co nc lu si on s d e n ov o, an d i ts 2 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 m m ’r of So c. Sec., 4 96 F.3d12 53 , 12 60 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ); s ee, e.g ., An RFC findingis “an a ssessment, based upon a ll of the rele vant evidenc e, of a 1 claimant’s r emainingability to do work despite [her] impairments.” L ewis v. Callahan, 125 F .3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). Miles has submitted in thi s appea l some new e vidence , as we ll as evidenc e that she only 2 raised f or the fir st tim e at the district c ourt. We decline to c onsider this evidenc e bec ause w e do not consider ne w evidenc e pre sented for the first time in an initial brief to this Court, W ilson v. Apfe l, 179 F.3d 1276, 1278–79 (11th Cir. 1999), a nd beca use Miles has off

ere d no argument for why the evidenc e first pre sented to the district cour t fits the narrow

set of circumstance s that would permit our re view. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (noting that “issues not brief

ed on appe al by

a pro se litigant ar e dee med aba ndoned”) ; see a lso Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F .3d 1253, 1267–68 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating42 U.S.C. § 405(g) require ments for judicial re view of e vidence not previously prese nted to SSA). 2Mo or e v Barn ha rt, 4 05 F.3d12 08 , 12 12 –1 3 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 5) (rev ie win g RFC

fin di ng forsubs tant ia l ev id en ce). Subs tant ia l ev id en ce i s d efi ne d a s “ su ch rel 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 co nc lu si on .” Mi le s v . Cha te r, 84 F.3d13 97 , 14 00 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o mit te d) . “ If the [SSA’s] deci 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 . Und er the So ci al Secu rity Act, the wid ow o f a fu ll y -in su redin di vi du al is en ti tl edto be ne fit s i f sh e es tabl is he s tha t s he is at l eas t 5 0, b utles s tha n 6 0 years of ag e, an d i s d is ab le d. Se e 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .33 5( c). Thu s, t o c ol le ctwid ow’s So ci al Secu rit y

be ne fit s, M il es ha d t o p ro ve th atsh e was di sabl ed , as d efi ne d un de r 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 50 5. Th e ALJ fo un d, an d t he pa rti es di d n otco nt es t, tha t th e p res cri be d p eri odwithi n wh ic h M il es ha d t o d em on strat e h er d is ab il ity ran fro m Marc h 1 , 19 91 to Marc h 3 1, 1 99 8. Se e 4 2 U.S.C. § 40 2( e)(1 ); 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .33 6( c) (d et ai li ng th e el ig ib il ity pe rio d fo r wid ow’s So ci al Secu rit y be ne fit s) . The So ci al Secu rit y

Reg ul at io ns ou tl in e a fi ve -s te p e va lu at io n p ro ces s u se d to de te rm in e whe th er a cl ai m an t i s d is ab le d. See Ph il li ps v. Ba rn ha rt, 3 57 F.3d 12 32 , 12 37 –3 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) ; 2 0 C .F.R. §§ 40 4.1 52 0( a)(4 )(i )-(v ), 41 6.9 20 (a)( 1) , (4) (i) -(v ). The ev al ua ti on co ns id ers each st ep intu rn , ask in g: (1) whe th er the cla im an t i s cu rren tl y en ga ge d i n s ub st an ti al ga in fu l ac ti vi ty; (2) 3whe th er the cla im an t h as a se ve re i m pa irment o r co m

bi na ti on of i m

pa irments ; (3 ) whe th er the im

pa irment m eet s o r equa ls th e se ve rit y of t he sp eci fie d i m

pa irments in th e Lis ti ng of I m

pa irments ; (4 ) whe th er, b as edon anRFC a ss es sm en t, the cl ai m an t ca n p erfo rm

an y of h er p as t re le va ntworkde sp it e th e im pa irment; an d (5 ) whe th er the re ar e si gn ifi can t n um be rs of jo bs inth e n at io na l ec on omy th atth e cl ai m an t ca n p erfo rm , gi ve n the cla im an t’s RF C, ag e, educ at io n, an d wo rk ex pe rie nc e. See P hi ll ip s, 3 57 F.3dat 1 23 7– 39 . The ALJ d et erm in edth atMi le s m etth e fi rs t two s te ps of t he SSR’s fi ve -s te p pr oc es s. At t he th irdst ep , ho wev er, the ALJ fo un d t ha t M il es ’s im pa irments di d no t m eetor e qu al a li st edim pa irment. Pr oc eed in g t o t he fou rth st ep , th e ALJ al so fo un d tha t M il es ret ai ne d the RFC t o p erfo rm he r pa strel ev an t wo rk , des pi te he r im pa irment, dur in g the cla im pe rio d (1 99 1– 19 98 ). See 2 0 C .F.R. §§ 41 6.9 20 (e), (f). Co nc lu di ng th atMi le s h adth e requi si te RFC, the ALJ h adno ne edto pro ceed to th e fi fthan d fi na l s te p o f th e an al y si s. See id . § 4 16 .92 0( a)(4 )(i v) . Mi le s ar gu es th atsubs tant ia l ev id en ce d oe s n otsupp ort the ALJ’s fi nd in gs rel at in g t o h er RF C dur in g the pre sc rib edpe rio d, an d s he ass ert s thr ee s pe ci fic erro rs th atledto th e ALJ’s al le ge dl y erro ne ou s co nc lu si on . Firs t, Mi le s ar gu es th atth e ALJ d idno t co ns id er al l the reco rd ’s m ed ic al ev id en ce, an d t ha t h e d idno t acco rdpro pe r wei gh t t o the st at em en ts of h er treat in g p hysic ians . Mil es is co rrec t 4th atth e rec or d c on ta in s ev id en ce fr om a few d oc to rs su gg es ti ng th at , as e arl y as 20 01 , sh e was di sabl ed . Butth atev id en ce d oe s n otgu aran te e th e su cces s o f he r cl ai m . 20 C.F.R. § § 4 04 .15 27 (e)( 1) , 41 6.9 27 (e)( 1) (cl ari fy in g t ha t a treat in g ph y si ci an ’s op in io n tha t a c la im an t i s “ di sabl ed ” is no t d is po si ti ve , as tha t u lt im at e co nc lu si on is a reg ul at ory de te rm in at io n l eftto th e ALJ). Here th e ALJ fo un d

“ go odcau se ” n otto he edth os e m ed ic al op in io ns , det erm in in g t ha t the y were witho utan y

ex pl an at io n o r ba si s i n c li ni cal fin di ng s, an d wer e co nt rad ic te d b y th e ot he r rec or d e vi de nc e. See Ph il li ps , 35 7 F .3dat 1 24 0– 41 (li st in g t he se as pe rm is si bl e b as es forfin di ng “ go odcau se ” to di sr eg ardth e o pi ni on of atre at in g ph y si ci an ). Ins te ad , th e ALJ re li edon th e m or e d et ai le d m ed ic al op in io ns pr ov id edby thre e o th er ex am in in g p hysic ians to fin d tha t, p rio r to Apri l 1 , 20 03 , Mi le s h adth e RFC to pe rfo rm li gh t wo rk , exc ep t fo r rep et it iv e li fti ng . Seco nd , Mil es arg ue s tha t the ALJ erre d b y di sc ou nt in g h er ch iro pr act or ’s op in io n tha t s he was c om pl et el y di sabl ed . Howev er, anALJ h as no du ty to g iv e si gn ifi can t o r co ntro ll in g wei gh t t o ach iro pr act or ’s vi ews be cau se , forSSA pu rp os es , a ch iro pr act oris no t a “ m ed ic al so ur ce” wh o c anoff er m ed ic al op in io ns . See 20 C.F.R. § § 4 04 .15 13 , 41 6.9 13 , 40 4.1 52 7( a)(2 ); C rawfo rdv. Co m m ’r of So c. Sec., 3 63 F.3d11 55 , 11 60 (11 thCir . 20 04 ). Furth er, as st at edab ov e, ev ena m ed ic al so ur ce’s s tate m en t tha t a c la im an t i s “ un ab le to work ” o r “ di sabl ed ” d oe s 5no t b in d the ALJ, who alo ne m ak es th e u lt im at e d et erm in at io n a s t o d is ab il ity

un de r th e reg ul at io ns . See 2 0 C .F.R. §§ 40 4.1 52 7( e)(1 ), 41 6.9 27 (e)( 1) . Thi rd , Mil es di sp ut es th atth e ALJ’s d et erm in at io n a s t o h er cr ed ib il ity was supp orte d b y

subs tant ia l ev id en ce, wh ere t he ALJ fo un d t ha t M il es ’s tes ti m on y reg ard in g the in te ns ity , per si st en ce an d l im it in g e ffec ts of h er s ym pt om s wer e “ no t en ti rel y cred ib le pri orto Apri l 1 , 20 03 .” The ALJis pe rm it te d t o re ach a co nc lu si on th atdi ffer s fr om th e subjec ti ve tes ti m on y of acla im an t. See Marb ury v. Su ll iv an , 95 7 F .2d83 7, 8 39 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (“ Afte r co ns id eri ng a cl ai m an t’s co m pl ai nt s o f pa in , th e ALJ m ay rejectth em

as n otcred it ab le . . . .”). Inm ak in g th is fin di ng , th e ALJ was requi redto art ic ul at e h is reas on s fo r di sc red it in g t he subjec ti ve tes ti m on y . See Wil so n v . Barn ha rt, 2 84 F.3d12 19 , 12 25 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ); s ee al so Fo ot e v . Cha te r, 67 F.3d15 53 , 15 62 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (“ A cle arl y art ic ul at edcred ib il ity

fin di ng with s ub st an ti al supp orti ng ev id en ce i n t he reco rd wil l n otbe di sturbe d b y

a rev ie win g c ou rt.” ). The ALJdi d s o h ere, co nc lu di ng th at , des pi te Mi le s’s t es ti m on y to th e co nt rary, the e nt ire ty of th e rec or d e vi de nc e sh owe d tha t s he po ss es se d the ab il ity to pe rfo rm

si gn ifi can t wo rkact iv it ie s. The ALJ rev ie wedall th e ev id en ce b efo re h im , acco rd edm or e wei gh t t o so m e ev id en ce tha n t o o th er ev id en ce, an d e xp la in edhi s re as on s fo r do in g s o. We th eref or e co nc lu de th atth e ALJ’s d et erm in at io ns are s up po rte d b y subs tant ia l 6ev id en ce, an d we wi ll no t d is tu rb hi s d eci si on . See Mi le s, 8 4 F .3dat 1 40 0.

AFFIRMED.

7