FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT May 28, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N 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. 07- 15647 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 3 3 7 - CV- J - TE M S U S A N L . M I L L E R , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s COM M I SS I ON EROF THE S OCI AL S E C U R I T Y A D M I N I S T R A T I O N , D e f e 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 f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 28, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S us a n L . M i l l e rappe a l s ade c i s i on tha ta f f i rm e d the de ni a l of

he rappl i c a t i on2

f ors uppl e m e nt a l s e c ur i tyi nc om e f r om the S oc i a l S e c ur i tyA dm i ni s tr a t i on. 42 U . S . C . § 1383( c ) ( 3) . M i l l e ra r gue s tha tthe a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l a w j udge f a i l e d t o gi ve a de qua t e a nd s pe c i f

i c r e a s ons f

orr e j e c t i ng the opi ni on of

he rtr e a t i ng phy s i c i a n, D r . M ig u e l D e

ju k , a n d D r . D e

ju k ’s o p in io n th a t M ille r ’s m e n ta l im p a irm e n ts p r e v e n te d h e rf

r o m w o rk in g s h o u ld h a v e b e e n g iv e n c o n tr o llin g w e ig h t. W e a f f irm . W e r evi ew the deci si on by the C om m i ss i on er“ t o d et erm i ne i f i ti s s up po rt ed bys ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e a nd ba s e d on pr ope rl e ga l s t a nda r ds . ” L e w i s v. C a l l a ha n, 12 5 F . 3d 14 36 , 14 39 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). S ub st ant i al evi dence consi st s of “ such r e le v a n t e v id e n c e a s ar e a s o n ab le p e r s o n w o u ld a c c e p t a s a d e q u a te to s u p p o rt a c onc l us i on. ” I d. a t1440. W e r e vi e w de novo the l e ga l c onc l us i ons of the C om m i s s i one r . M oor e v. B a rnha rt , 405 F . 3d 1208, 1211 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T he c la im a n t h a s th e b u r d e n to p r o v e th a t s h e is d is ab le d a n de n title dto S o c ia l S e c u r ity be ne f i t s . S e e 20 C . F . R . § 404. 1512( a ) ; D oughtyv. A pf e l , 245 F . 3d 1274, 1278 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). A n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l a w j udge m us te xpl a i n the w e i ghthe gi ve s t o di f f e r e nt m e di c a l opi ni ons . S ha r f a r z v. B ow e n, 825 F . 2d 278, 279 ( 11th C i r . 1987) . “ [ T ] he t e s t i m onyof

atr e a t i ng phy s i c i a n m us tbe gi ve n s ubs t a nt i a l orc ons i de r abl e w e i ght unl e s s ‘ good c aus e ’ i s s how n t o the c ontr a ry . ” C r a w f or d v. C om m i s s i one r , 3633

F . 3d 11 55 , 11 59 (11th C i r. 20 04 ) ( qu ot i ng L ew i s, 12 5 F . 3d at14 40 ) ( i nt ernal q u o tati o n m ar k s o m itted ). G o o d ca u se ex ists w h er e th e tre atin g p h ys ician ’s opi ni on i s notbol s t e r e d bythe e vi de nc e , the e vi de nc e s upport s ac ontr a ryf i ndi ng, the phy s i c i a n’ s opi ni on i s c onc l us ory , orthe opi ni on i s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th the phy s i c i a n’ s ow n m e di c a l r e c or ds . L e w i s , 125 F . 3d a t1440. S ub st ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the deci si on no tt o cre di tthe op i ni on of D r. D ej uk . H i s opi ni on w as no tsupp ort ed by obj ec t i ve m edi ca l evi dence. S ee C raw ford, 36 3 F . 3d at11 59 . D r. D ej uk , w ho prac t i ce d i nt ernal m edi ci ne, prepare d a l ett erand res i du al funct i on al capaci ty a ss es sm enti n w hi ch he as se rt ed thatM i l l er coul d n otw ork o r c on du ctdai l y l i vi ng ac t i vi t i es du e t o h erdepres si on , bi po l ar d is o r d e r , s c h iz o - a f

f e c tiv e p e r s o n a lity , s u ic id a l te n d e n c ie s , a n d m e d ic a tio n s . H e d id n o t t es t M il ler o r c o n su ltw ith sp ec iali sts to re ac h h is co n clu sio n s ab o u t M il ler’s m ent al heal th and hi s tre atm entno t es do cum ent ed on l y M i l l er ’ s physi ca l l i m i t at i o n s. D r . D e j uk’ s c onc l us i ons w e r e di s c r e di t e d byhi s ow n i nc ons i s t e nt s ta te m e n ts , te s tim o n yf

r o m M ille r , a n d th e o p in io n s p r o v id e d b ym e n ta l h e a lth spec i al i st s. O ne m on th b ef ore D r. D ej uk prepare d the l ett erand ass es sm ent , he had fi l ed a f orm w i th the F l ori da D epartm entof H ea l th st at i ng thatM i l l ersuff er ed f r om onl y a nxi e tya nd pa ni c a tt a c ks , s he w a s nots ui c i da l , he rm e di c a t i ons4

control l ed her m ent al cond i t i on s, and she performed rou t i ne ho usehol d act i vi t i es on a dai l y bas i s. M i l l ert es t i fi ed thatshe f ol l ow ed a dai l y s chedul e t o p re pare l unc h f orhe rhus ba nd a nd s on, tr a ns porthe rc hi l dr e n, a nd c om pl e t e tw o hour s of hous e hol d c hor e s . M e nt a l he a l th s pe c i a l i s t s c onc l ude d tha tM i l l e r ’ s c ondi t i on im p o s e d o n lym ildto m o d e r a te lim ita tio n s o n h e rab ilityto w o rk . T he adm i ni stra t i ve l aw j ud ge had g oo d cause t o d i sc ou ntthe op i ni on of D r. D ej uk . T he op i ni on of spec i al i st s and M i l l er ’ s ow n st at em ent s abo uther physi ca l and m ent al capabi l i t i es es t abl i shed thatM i l l erhad suffi ci entre si du al funct i on al capaci ty t o p er form a r ange of l i gh tw ork. S ee 20 C . F . R . §§ 41 6. 92 7(d)(2)(i i ), ( d) ( 5) ( c r e di t i ng the opi ni on of as pe c i a l i s t ) . T he f

i ndi ngs bythe a dm i ni s tr a t i ve l aw j ud ge ar e s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence. T h e d en i al o f M i l l er’ s ap p l i cat i o n fo r b en efi t s i s A FFI R M ED .