FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT APR 16, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

On Fe bruar

y 1, 2007, Michae l J . Astrue be came the Commiss ioner of Socia l Security . 1 In a c c or da

nc e wi th R

ule 43 (c )( 2) of

the F e de ra l Ru le s o f A

pp e llate Pr oc e dure , M r. As tr ue is su bs tit ute d f or Jo Anne B . B arnha

rt , th e fo rm e r c omm iss ion e r, a s th e de fe nd ant- a pp e lle e in t

his action. [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1595 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-00099 -CV -4-W S-W CS BONNIE G. PETERS, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us MIC HAEL J. ASTRUE , 1 Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (A pr il 16, 200 7) Be fo re BI RC H , CA RN E S an d M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: Bo nni e G . P et er s a

ppe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r af fi rming an adm inistrative law j udge’s denial of her application for disabil ity insurance be ne fi ts unde r 42 U . S. C. § 40 5( g) . P et er s c ont en ds tha t the A L J e rr ed in fi ndi ng that sh e poss es se d th e re sid ua l f unc tio na l c ap ac ity

to pe rf orm he r pa st r el ev an t work a s a c as hi er o r el ect ro ni cs ass em bl er. Fo r th e rea so ns setfor th be lo w, we affi rm . I. Pe te rs f ile d an a ppl ic at ionf

or dis ab ili ty

ins ur an ce be ne fi ts o n F eb ru ar y 13, 2 0 0 2 . I nh e r

ap p l i c a t i o n , P e t e r s a l l e g e dth a to nN o v e mb e r 6 , 2 0 0 1 s h e b e c a me una ble to w ork be ca

use of de ge ne rativ e dis c dis ea se , f ai le d ba ck

sy ndr om e, and fi br om y al gia . T he S oc ia l S ec ur ity A dm ini str at ionde nie d he r ap pli catio n on Augus t 29 , 200 2. S he the n a ske d th e SS Ato re co nsi de r its de ci sio n, and o n Marc h 26 , 200 3, it

a ga in d en ie d he r ap pli catio n. P et er s th enr eque ste d ahe ar ing with an A LJ, which occurr ed in May 2005 . At that hear ing, Peter s’ principal supp ort for her application cam e fr om her personal testim ony

and the m edical re co rd s of

tw o ph y sic ians, D r. Mi ch ae l G ette r an d D r. Mark L loy d. B ec au se the procedural history

and facts of this appeal ar e lengthy and com plicated, w e set fo rth on ly tho se po rti on s t ha t re la te di rect ly to o urde ci si on .Peters also testified that she has proble ms conce ntratingand with her memory , but she 2 has not raise d any

issues relating

to her menta l fac ulties in thi s appea l.

3 Pe te rs w as a52- y ear- old

hig h sc hool gr ad

ua te the ti m e of

he r he ar ing in front of the A LJ. H er ser ious h ealth problem s began in 19 98, when she had sur ge ry to re pa ir tw o r uptur ed dis cs in he r ba ck . Appare ntl y , the sur ge ry did not al le viate he r ba ck

pa in, and s he nowe xpe ri en ce s pa in whe ne ve r she sit s, stands, or wa lks. A ccording to Peters, she can sit for about 30 m inutes before the pain in her ba ck and h ips f

or ce s he r to a lle viate the pa in b y e ith er standi ng o r w al kin g f

or about 15 to 20 m inutes, at which tim e she can sit for anoth er 30 m inutes. Peter s te sti fi ed that sh e can c ont inu e thi s r out ine of sittin g and s tandi ng f

or about f ive or six ho urs a day . She also estim ated that she can w alk about eigh t blocks b efore the pain in her thig hs com pels her to rest. H owever , she a dm itted to th e A LJ that 2 she is capable of clim

bing a flight of stairs, albeit with increa sed pain in her lower ba ckan d h ip s. Peter s takes prescription pain m edicine to treat her pain, and she testified that thos e m edicines frequently cause her to becom e drowsy . She also testified th atsh e h as pro bl em s s le ep in g a t n ig htbe cau se of b ackpa in an d m us cl e sp as m s. When asked abouther daily activities, Pe ters re spon ded that, on a ty pical day , she ge ts u

p, take s he r m ed ic ine and, onc e the m ed ic ine start s w orkin g, she4

cl eans, c ooks , and w as he s di she s. I n th e ev en ing s, she w at ch es T Vor occasionally

does needlepoin t. A ccording to Peters, she can only perform do m es ti c ch or es forab ou t 2 0 t o 3 0 m in ut es wit ho uttak in g abre ak . Peter s has not worked since Novem ber 2001. She testified that she w orked as a to ol an d d ie rep ai rp ers on forth e ei gh t years p rece di ng he r al le ge d d is ab il it y . Prior to that, she had worked as a c ashier at a grocery store for 8 m onth s and as an electronics assem

bler for one y ear. Bef

ore her j ob as an electronics assem bler, Peter s assem

bled electrical boxes. At P eters’ hearing, a vocational expert testified that Peters’ past relevant w ork experience a s a cashier and electronics assem bler was pro pe rly clas si fie d a s “ li gh t ex ert io na l wo rk .” Ina ddi tio n to he r own te sti m ony , P et er s pr oduc ed the m ed ic al r ec or ds f

ro m tw o of he r tr eatin g ph y sic ians. T he f ir st b at chof

phy sic ian r ec or ds w er e the pr oduc t of

D r. Mi ch ae l G ette r, an ortho pe dis t who p er fo rm ed he r ba ck sur ge ry in 1998 and who c ont inu ed

tr eatin g he r unt il Fe br

uary 21, 200 1. D r. G ette r’ s r ec or ds ind ic at e that P et er s stru ggl ed w ithba ck

pa in whil e he w as tr eatin g he r an d th at he pr es cr ibe d th e pow er fu l pa ink ill er O xy Co nti n to e as e he r pa in. B ut h is n ote s a lso de m onstrate that P et er s’ c ondi tio n im pr ove d a s ar es ult

of his tr eatm en t, obs er

vin g at one pointthat she could “ wa lk norm ally ” and that her back had re spon ded

“ imm en se ly” well to st ero idtre at m en ts .5

O n F eb ru ar

y 13, 200 1, P et er s c om

pla ine d to D r. G ette r ab out havin g

“ m ult ipl e j oin t a ch es and p ai ns. ” D r. G ette r re spon de d by c he ck ing he r fo r fi br om y al gia , w hic h is don e by

e xam ini ng e igh te en“ tr igg er poi nts ”—

poi nts on the body of ape rs on w ithf

ibr om y al gia that e xhi bit

sor en es s or

e xpe ri en ce pa in when probed. Dr . G etter f oundonly

two such points on Peters’ bodyand noted that sh e w as “ nowhe re ne ar w ha t sh e w oul d ne ed

to m ak e the dia gnos is o f fi br om y al gia . ” H e did , how ev er , not e that the a ch es w er e not r el at ed to Pe te rs ’ ba ck pr obl em s and w er e poss ibl y rhe um at olo gic al . Ar oundFebruar

y 20, 2001, m ore than nine m onth s before P eters’ alleged da te of dis ab ili ty , D r. G ette r co m ple te d a“ Me dic al A sse ssm en t of Abil ity to do W ork- Re late d A ct ivi tie s” f or P et er s. I n th e as se ssm en t, D r. G ette r state d hi s opi nio n of

P et er s’ w ork c ap ac ity : ( 1) she c oul d no t l if t m or e than f

ive pounds on a frequent basis; (2) she could notstand for m ore than a total of tw o hou rs a day at 30 m inute int ervals; (3) she could not sit for m ore than a total of tw o hou rs a day at 30 m inute int er

va ls; ( 4) she c oul d no t c lim b, c ro uc h, sto op, or

c raw l, but

c oul d kne el oc ca sio na lly ; ( 5) he r ab ili ty to pushor

pul l w as a ff

ec te d by he r ba ck pa in; an d ( 6) he r ina

bil ity to ba lanc e an d he r la ck

of f le xib ili ty a lso li m ite d th e ty

pe of work s he co ul d p erfo rm . Inale tte r da te d F eb ru ar

y 22, 200 1, D r. G ette r w ro te to the S oc ia l S ec ur ity6

A dm ini str at ionthat P et er s’ ba ck pa in r equir ed

he r to s hif

t po sit ion s f

re que ntl y and pr ev en te d he r fr om

doi ng any

m eanin gf

ul ty pe of w ork, inc lud ing any

ty pe of w ork sh e ha d do ne pr ev iou sly . D r. G ette r al so n ote d th at he ha d tr eate d P et er s f

or the pa st s ev er al y ears . D ur ing his tr eatm en t he ha d f ound he r co m pla int s to be valid and her inpu t to be trustworthy . He noted that Peters’ decre ased spinal flexibilityand her back pain inhibi ted her ability to sit, stand, stoop, bend, or squat fo r pr olo nge d pe ri ods of

ti m e. B as ed

on h is a sse ssm en t of

P et er s’ he al th, he concluded th at she wa s unem ploy able. How ever, as noted by the AL J’ s order, G ette r did

not c ite any spe ci fi c, obj ec tiv e m ed ic al e vid en ce to supp ort hi s co nc lus ion . The sec ond b atch of phy sician records that Pete rs used to sup port her application for disabi lity

benefits wa s the product of Dr. T. Mark L loy d. D r. Lloy d’ s records cover f

rom Marc h 10, 2001 until May 13, 2005, and they cat al og ue th e sa m e h eal th pro bl em s t ha t wer e tr eat edby D r. Gett er. In a Mar ch 15, 2001 exam ination (a m onth after Dr . G etter’ s last exam), Dr . L loy d no te d th at

P et er s e xhi bit ed

pa in i n 14 of

the pos sib le 18 tri gge r poi nts f or fi br om y al gia . H e al so n ote d te nde rn es s and a de cr ea se d r an ge of

m oti on i n P et er s’ ne ck and l ow er

spi ne . I n Apr il 2001 , D r. L loy d no te d pa in o r sor en es s ina ll 18 o f Peter s’ fibrom

y algia trigger points . In July 2001 , he wr ote in his records that7

Pe te rs ’ c ondi tio n ha d im

pr ove d, but

D r. L loy d no te d di ff

use te nde rn es s insom e of her m uscles and in her neck, as w ell as a dec reased r ange of m otion in her lower spine. In Se ptem

ber 2001, he also noted that th e re sults of a bone scan indicated th atPet ers ha d n o i nf

la m m at io n i n a ny of h er joi nt s. As part of Peter s’ treatm ent, D r. Lloy d prescribed bi-we ekly phy sical the ra py . F ro m O ct obe r 29, 200 1 un til F eb ru ar y 13, 200 2, P et er s atte nde d th ose pr es cr ibe d ph y sic al the ra py se ssi ons. T he phy sic al the ra pis t no te d th at

P et er s’ co ndi tio n di d no t i m

pe de he r fr om

part ic ipatin g inhe r the ra py . I n ge ne ra l, the the ra py im pr ove d th e range of

m oti on i n P et er s’ low er

spi ne . O n F eb ru ar

y 1, 2002 , the phy sic al the ra

pis t no te d th at

P et er s w as e xpe ri en ci ng s or en es s be ca use she had been out o n a boat, f ishin g. O n April 12, 2002, D r. Lloy d again noted th at al l 18 tr igg er

poi nts on P et er s’ body

ind ic at ed that sh e ha d f

ibr om y al gia , but

he also noted th at, overall, phy sical therapy wa s helping Peter s, and she w as tol er at ing he r m ed ic ine s. Fo r re as ons not

e xpl ai ne d inhe r br ie f, P et er s a ppare ntl y did not und er go ph y si cal th erap y

form or e th an two y ears aft er h er v is itto Dr. Llo y d i n Ap ril 20 02 . How ever, from

Marc h 9, 2004 un til May 20, 2005, she returned to phy sical the ra py , a tte ndi ng s es sio ns a

bout onc e pe r w ee k. D ur ing tho se se ssi ons, she com plained abou t pain and soreness. How ever, Peter s also reported that she had8

be en supp le m en ti ng he r ph y si cal th erap y wit h p il at es y og a. O n M ay 13, 200 5, D r. L loy d c om ple te d a“ Re sid

ua l F unc tio na l C ap ac ity Evaluation” that wa s based on hi s assessm ent of Peter s’ conditio n between March 10, 2001 andMarc h 31, 2004 . In the evaluation Dr. Lloy d stated his o pinio n that dur ing an e igh t ho ur

w orkday P et er s c oul d st an d or

sit f or thi rty m inute s to one hour w ith out takin g abr eak and c oul d li ft or c ar ry up t o f ive pounds. A cc or din g to the e va luatio n, P et er s w oul d be una ble to co m

ple te anor

m al w orkday

w ith out an un reas on ab le nu m

be r of bre ak s t o m an ag e h er p ai n. Other phy sicians reached conclusions abo ut Peters’ conditio n that differed fr om the c onc lus ion s of

he r tr eatin g ph y sic ians. F or ins tanc e, in a Jul y

31, 200 2 dis ab ili ty e va luatio n, D r. Je sse L ipn ic k r ep orte d th at P et er s’ gr ip s tr en gthand ability to m anipulate objects w ith her fingers we re w ithin norm al lim its and that she could walk with good b alance, althoug h he did acknowledge that Peters’ left hip e xhi bit ed

ar ed uc ed r an ge of m oti on and w as sub

j ec t t o m usc le spa sm s. I n hi s conclusio n, he agr eed w ith Dr. Ge tter that Pete rs’ lower back pain had reduced her work ca pacity , but he did not elaborate on what ty pe of w ork, if any , that she w as cap ab le of p erfo rm in g. An elaboration o n Peters’ work c apacity cam e on August 21, 2002 , when Dr . R obert Steele prepared a “ Phy sical Residual Functional Capacity Assessm ent.”The doc tor’s sig nature is ill eg ible. (See A R at 261). 3 9 A cc or din g to D r. S te el e, P et er s ha d th e ca pa ci ty to: ( 1) li ft

or c ar ry 20 p ound s occasionally ; (2) lift or c arry 10 pou nds frequently ; (3) stand or wa lk with norm al br eaks f or about 6 ho ur s inan 8- hour

w orkday ; ( 4) sit

w ithnor m al br eaks f

or about 6 h ours in an 8-ho ur workday ; and (5) push or pul l without special re str ic tio ns. D r. S te el e’ s e xam r es ult s in dic at ed

that P et er s’ str en gthsc or e w as a five out of five and that her gait, grip, and ability to m anipulate objects w ith her fingers we re a ll within norm al lim its. H e also noted that sh e had spasm s in her ba ckm us cl es an d ade crea se d ra ng e o f m ot io n i n h er l owe r ba ck . O n F eb ru ar

y 13, 200 3, D r. Abde l R am ad anr ep orte d th at P et er s ha d af

ull range of m oti on i n a ll of

he r j oin ts and i n he r spi ne . H e state d th at P et er s c oul d dr es s h ers el f, op en an d c lo se do or s, an d c om pl et e rep et it iv e m ot io ns . On Mar ch 7, 2003, Pe ters underwe nt anoth er P hy sical Residual Functional Ca pa ci ty A sse ssm en t, pe rf

orm ed by anothe r doc tor , w hic h in dic at ed that sh e 3 co uld : ( 1) oc ca sio na lly

li ft or c ar ry 20 p ound s; ( 2) f

re que ntl y li ft or c ar ry 10 poun ds; ( 3) stand o r w al k f or about 6 ho ur s inan 8- hour

w orkday ; ( 4) sit

f or about 6 ho ur s inan 8- hour

w orkday ; and ( 5) pus h or pul l f or an un lim ite d am ount

of tim e. T he doc tor

a lso not ed

that P et er s c oul d oc ca sio na lly c lim b st ai rs and la dde rs , ba lanc e, sto op, kne el , c ro uc h, and c raw l.10

T he A L J de nie d P et er s’ appl ic at ionf or dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts. I n r ea ch ing his de ci sio n, the A L J f

oll ow ed the f ive ste ps s et

f orth i n 20 C. F. R. § 40 4. 1520 f or determ ining whether

a claim ant is legally

disabled. T hose five steps require that the AL J: (1) determ ine whether the claim ant is currently perform ing substantial ga inf ul w ork; ( 2) if

the c la im an t i s no t pe rf

orm ing sub stanti al ga inf

ul w ork, d et erm i n e w h et h erth e c l ai m an t ’s i m p ai rmen t (s ) a re “ s ev er e” ; (3 ) i f t h e c l ai m an t ’s im pa irm en t( s) are se ve re , de te rmine w he the r the im pa irm en t( s) ha s la ste d or

is expe ct ed to la st f or a t l ea st 1 2 m onths; ( 4) if the im pa irm en t( s) w ill la st 1 2 m onths, de te rmine w he the r the c la im an t’ s im pa irm en t( s) pr ev en t he r fr om doi ng h er

pa st re le vant w ork; and ( 5) if

the im pa irm en t( s) pr ev en t the c la im ant f ro m pe rf orm ing he r pa st r el ev an t w ork, de te rmine w he the r oth er w ork e xis ts tha t w oul d ac co m m odate he r re sid

ua l f unc tio na l c ap ac ity . S ee 20 C . F. R. § 40 4. 1520 . T he A L J f

ound that P et er s satis fi ed

the f ir st thr ee ste ps. H ow ev er , he f ound that e ve n a ft er

a cc ount ing f

or P et er s’ “ se ve re ” im

pa irm en ts, she sti ll poss es se d th e residual functional capacity for light work, m aking her capable of perf orm ing her pa st r el ev an t w ork a s ac as hie r or an e le ctro nic s a sse m

ble r. T he re fo re , he f

ound th atsh e was no t d is ab le d a ndde ni edhe r be ne fit s ap pl ic at io n. P et er s a ppe al ed to the dis tr ic t c ourt, arg uin g th at the A L J e rr ed

by r ef usi ng to giv e controlling weight to th e opinio n of her tre ating ph y sicians. Afeder al11

m ag istrate j udge , in his r ep ort and r ec om m en da tio n, a gr ee d w ithP et er s and recom m ended that the AL J’ s order be re versed. The district court, however, re j ec te d th e m ag istrate j udge ’ s r ep ort and a ff irm ed the A L J’ s or de r, de te rmini ng that the A L J di d no t e rr

in de cl ar ing to giv e co ntr oll ing w ei ght to the opi nio ns o f Dr. Gett er an d Dr. Ll oyd. II. On appeal, Peter s contends that the AL J erre d at step four of the five-step an al y sis se t f

orth i n 20 C. F. R. § 40 4. 1520 , be ca use he inc or

re ct ly f ound that sh e poss es se d th e re sid

ua l f unc tio nin g c ap ac ity

to pe rf orm he r pa st r el ev an t em plo ym en t. H er

br ie f doe s no t se t f

orth w ithgr eat c lari ty

spe ci fi c ar gum en ts i n supp ort of

that c ont en tio n. H ow ev er , a ft er r ev ie w ing he r br ie f an d th e re co rd on ap pe al , the re appare ntl y

are tw o ov er la

ppi ng arg um en ts f

or he r posi tio n. T he f

ir st ar gum en t i s th e sam e one she m ad e to the dis tr ic t c ourt: that the A L J im pr ope rl y dis co unt ed

the e vid en ce pr ovi de d by he r tr eatin g ph y sic ians. T he se co nd ar gum en t i s m or e spe ci fi c, statin g th at the A L J e rr ed

by r equir ing obj ec tiv e m ed ic al e vid en ce to supp ort he r cl ai m s of f ibr om y al gia . T he gov er

nm en t r es pond s th atth e ALJ’s fi nd in gs are s up po rte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. W e re vie wthe Co m

m iss ion er ’ s de ci sio n inor de r to d et er m ine w he the r it (1 ) is supp or te d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce an d (2 ) was ba se d o n c orrectleg al st an da rd s.12

W ils on v . Barnhart , 284 F . 3d 1 219, 122 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . W e w ill not sub sti tut e our j udge m en t f

or that of the Co m m iss ion er . S ee Barn es v. S ull ivan, 932 F . 2d 1356 , 135 7–58 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . “ Su bst an tia l e vid en ce is som ethin g m or e than a m er e sc int ill a, but

is le ss than apr ep onde ranc e, ” D y er v. Barnhart , 395 F . 3d 1 206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation m arks and citations om itted), and “ is such re le vant e vid en ce a s ar ea sona ble pe rs on w oul d a cc ep t a s a de quate to supp ort a conclusio n,” Craw ford v. C omm ’ r of S oc. S ec. , 363 F. 3d 11 55, 1158 (11t h Cir. 2004 ) (quotation m arks and citations om itted). “ Even if the evidence pr ep onde rate s a ga ins t the Co m m iss ion er ’ s f

ind ing s, [ thi s C ourt] m

ust a ff irm if the de ci sio n r ea ch ed

is supp orte d by

sub stanti al e vid en ce . ” I d. a t 11 58–5 9 ( quot at ion m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) . A s P et er s po int s out i n he r br ie f, the te sti m ony or opi nio n of

atr eatin g phy sic ian m

ust be giv ensub stanti al or

c onsi de ra

ble w ei ght

unl es s th er e is “ good ca use ” not to. L ew is v . Ca llahan, 125 F . 3d 1 436, 144 0 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . I n L ew is we stated that “ goodcause” e xists wher e (1) the tr eating phy sician’ s opin ion was not bol ste re d by

the e vid en ce , ( 2) the e vid en ce sup porte d ac ontrary f ind ing , or ( 3) th e tr eat in g p hysic ia n’s o pi ni on was c on cl us ory or i nc on si st en t wi th hi s o wn m ed ic al r ec or ds. I d. H ow ev er , the A L J m ust c le ar ly art ic ulate the r ea sons f

or giv ing le ss w ei ght

to the opi nio n of

atr eatin g ph y sic ian, and the f ai lur e to d o so13

co ns ti tu te s re ve rs ib le erro r. Id. Inthi s c as e the A L J f

ound goo d c au se to dis co unt

the tr eatin g ph y sic ians’ opi nio n and c le ar ly

art ic ulate d hi s r ea sons f

or doi ng s o. H e not ed

the dis cr ep an ci es be tw ee n th e phy sic ians’ dis ab ili ty e va luatio ns and the ir

tr eatm en t notes. For e xam

ple, the A LJ f

oundthat both Dr . G etter and Dr. Lloy d had followed “ conservative” courses of treatm ent and had not ed that Peter s responded well to ph y si cal th erap y

an d t o a nt i-i nf

la m m at ory in jecti on s. Lik ewis e, th e ALJ obse rv ed that a S ep te m be r 2001 bon e sc ansho w ed no i nf lam m at or y sit es and d id not support Peters’ com

plaints o f body

pain. I n additio n, at le ast three other phy sicians exam ined Peters and assessed her hea lth as being m uch better than ind ic at ed by D r. G ette r or

D r. L loy d. Mo re ove r, the A L J f ound that, in lig ht o f Pe te rs ’ m ed ic al his tor

y , the de gr ee of

tr eatm en t sh e re qui re d, and h er de sc ri pti on of he r da ily a ct ivi tie s, he r te sti m ony

about he r co ndi tio n w as “ not

e nti re ly cr ed ibl e. ” S ee Mo or e v. Barnhart , 405 F . 3d 1 208, 121 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) (“ [C]red ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns are t he pro vi nc e o f th e ALJ.”) . G ive n th e inc onsi ste nc ie s be tw ee n th e not es and the dis ab ili ty e va luatio ns of P et er s’ tr eatin g ph y sic ians, the re w as ale git im at e re as on f or the A L J to discredit their evaluations andto place greate r w eight on the evaluations o f other phy sicians who evaluated Peter s. And Peters has not shown that tho se other14

ev al ua tio ns d o no t c onst itute sub stanti al e vid en ce f ro m w hic h th e A L J c oul d reasonably

determ ine that Peters has the r esidual function al capac ity to perform he r pa st r el ev an t w ork a s ac as hie r or e le ctro nic s a sse m

ble r. S ee Mc Cr

ute r v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 1544 , 1547 (11th Cir. 1986) (noting that the severity of a di sabi li ty “ m

us t b e m eas ur edin term s o f it s ef fectup on ab il it y

to work ”). Pe te rs a lso arg ue s th at

the A L J e rr ed

by r equir ing that he r dia gnos is o f fibrom y algia be suppo rted by

objec tive m edical evidence. T o supp ort that ar gum en t, she c or

re ct ly obs er ve s th at one ha llm ar

k of f ibr om y al gia is a la ck of objec tive evidence. F rom that observation she argues that our unpublish ed opin ion in Stew art v. Apfe l, N o. 99-6132, 2000 U. S. App. Le xis 33 214 (11t h Cir. 2000 ), shoul d control the ou tcom e of this case. Pete rs acknowledges that Stew art is m er el y pe rs ua siv e autho ri ty , but she non ethe le ss arg ue s th at it sho uld pe rs ua de us in th is cas e. W e re j ec t he r ar gum en t f

or tw o r ea sons . F ir st, w e ar e not pe rs ua de d by

the unpu bli she d S te w ar

t op ini on. T he f

ac ts o f thi s c as e ar e dis tin gui sha ble f ro m the facts of that c ase. In Stew art there wa s no oth er m edical evidence that co ntr ad ic te d th e tr eatin g ph y sic ian’ s di ag nosi s of f ibr om y al gia . I d. a t *5 –*9. T he ALJ d idno t ar ti cu la te an y sp eci fic reas on s fo r reject in g t he ALJ’s te st im on y . In ste ad , he sim

ply r ej ec te d th e tr eatin g ph y sic ian’ s te sti m ony be ca use the re w as no15

obj ec tiv e m ed ic al e vid en ce sup portin g hi s di ag nosi s. I d. H er e, the re not onl y is o b je ct i v e med i ca l ev i d en ce , s u ch as Pe t er s ’ bo n e s ca n , s up p o rt i n g th e A LJ ’s conclusio n, but there also is opinio n evidence from other phy sicians that dis putes th e co nc lu si on s o f Pet ers ’ tre at in g p hysic ia ns . The sec ond andm ore im

portant reason that we r ej ect Pe ters’ argum ent that St ew ar t sh oul d pe rs ua de us i s our de ci sio n inMo or e v. Barnhart , 405 F . 3d 1 208, 1212 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) , w he re w e co nc lud ed that the A L J di d no t e rr

in dis co unt ing the opi nio n of

the pla int if

f’ s tr eatin g ph y sic ian th at the pla int if

f’ s f ibr om y al gia w as dis ab lin g. I n M oor e w e state d th at “ [w ] hil e a tr eatin g ph y sic ian’ s te sti m ony can be part ic ularl y

va lua ble in fi br om

y al gia c as es , w he re obj ec tiv e ev ide nc e is of te n a bse nt, the A L J . . . a de quate ly art ic ulate d sp ec if

ic j ust if ic at ionf or dis co unt ing [ the tr eatin g ph y sic ian’ s] opi nio n. ” I d. L ike w ise , the A L J inthi s c as e gave spe ci fi c, c oge nt, and c re dib le r ea sons fo r dis co unt ing the c onc lus ion s of P et er s’ tr eatin g ph y sic ians. H e fo und that the co nc lus ion s th at

the y w ro te on the e va luatio n f orm s to sup port P et er s’ dis ab ili ty applications we re inconsistent with their own treatm ent records. Furtherm ore, each phy sicians’ opini on of Peters’ fibrom y algia differ ed: in February 2001 Dr . Ge tters found that on ly

2 of the 18 trigger poin ts on Peters’ bodysuggest ed that she ha d f ibr om y al gia , but

le ss than on e m onth late r D r. L loy d f ound that 14 of

the16

18 tri gg er p oi nt s i nd ic at edth e Pet ers was s uf feri ng fro m

fib ro m y al gi a. The ALJ also noted th e inconsist encies betwe en Peter s’ claim s of disabilit y and her te sti m ony r eg ar din g he r ab ili ty

to pe rf orm vari ous ta sks aro und he r hom e. S ee id. (“ [T ] he A L J he re r el ie d onthe inc onsi ste nc ie s be tw ee n M oor e’ s de sc ri pti ons of he r div er se da ily

a ct ivi tie s and h er

c la im s of inf irm ity . ”) . T he re fo re , the re is subs tanti al e vid en ce to supp ort the A L J’ s f ind ing that P et er s’ f

ibr om y al gia did not pr ev en t h er fro m

pe rfo rm in g h er p as t re le va ntwork . AFFIRMED.