FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 7, 2007 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- 12136 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 4 8 1 - CV - O C- 1 0 - G RJ J A M E S B L I S S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C O M M I S S I O N E R O F S O C I A L 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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 7, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J a m e s B l i s s appe a l s the j udgm e ntof the di s tr i c tc our ttha ta f f i rm e d the2

d e n ia l o f B lis s ’s ap p lic a tio n f

o rs u p p le m e n ta l s e c u r ity in c o m e a n d d is ab ility i nsurance benef

i t s. B l i ss ar gu es thatthe A L J e rr ed w hen i tas si gn ed m i ni m al w e i ghtt o the opi ni on of B l i s s ’ s tr e a t i ng phy s i c i a n a nd f a i l e d t o obt a i n the te s tim o n y o f

a v o c a tio n a l e x p e r t. W e a f f irm . W e r e vi e w a s oc i a l s e c ur i ty appe a l t o de t e rm i ne w he the rthe de c i s i on of the A L J i s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence and w hether the A L J app l i ed the corre ct l e ga l s t a nda r ds . S e e 42 U . S . C . § 405( g) ; C r a w f or d v. C om m ’ rof

S oc . S e c . , 363 F . 3d 11 55 , 11 58 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). S ub st ant i al evi dence i s “ such re l evantevi dence as the re as on abl e m i nd m i gh tac ce ptas adequat e t o sup po rta c on cl usi on . ” W al den v. S c hw e i ke r , 672 F . 2d 835, 838 ( 11th C i r . 1982) . W e r e vi e w de novo the de c i s i on of the di s tr i c tc our tr e ga r di ng w he the rs ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the f i ndi ngs of the A L J. W i l son v . B arnh art , 28 4 F . 3d 12 19 , 12 21 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). B l i s s f i r s ta r gue s tha tthe A L J e rr e d w he n i tdi s c ount e d the t e s t i m ony of B l i s s ’ s tr e a t i ng ps y c hol ogi s t , C . B r ooks H e nde r s on, P h. D . A n A L J m a y r e j e c tthe op i ni on of a tre at i ng ph ys i ci an, w hi ch ordi nari l y r ec ei ves s ub st ant i al w ei gh t , w here

“ go od cause” i s e st abl i shed. P hi l l i ps v. B arnh art , 35 7 F . 3d 12 32 , 12 40 (11th C i r. 2004) . “ T hi s C our tha s c onc l ude d ‘ good c a us e ’ e xi s t s w he n the : ( 1) tr e a t i ng phy s i c i a n’ s opi ni on w a s notbol s t e r e d by the e vi de nc e ; ( 2) e vi de nc e s uppor t e d a c ontr a ry f

i ndi ng; or( 3) tr e a t i ng phy s i c i a n’ s opi ni on w a s c onc l us ory ori nc ons i s t e nt3

w i th the doc t or ’ s ow n m e di c a l r e c or ds . ” I d. a t1240–41. I f the A L J di s r e ga r ds the op i ni on of a tre at i ng ph ys i ci an, the A L J m ustcl ea rl y a rt i cul at e hi s r ea sons. Id. at 1 2 4 1 . T he A L J a rt i cul at ed se vera l re as on s f or di sc ou nt i ng the op i ni on of D r. H enders on , and the re cord supp ort s the deci si on of the A L J. T he A L J det erm i ned tha tD r . H e nde r s on’ s ul t i m a t e c onc l us i on of m e nt a l i m pa i rm e ntw a s i nc ons i s t e nt w i th h i s o w n treatm en tn o t es th atch aract eri zed B l i ss as “ p l easan t , fri en d l y, coop er at i ve, ori ent ed, al ert , bri gh t , and i ntrospec t i ve w i th n o tho ug htdi sorder . ” T h e r e c o r d a l s o e s t ab l i s h e d th a tDr . He n d e r s o n o b s e rv e d B l i s s o n o n l y two occa si on s duri ng the re l evantperi od and the eval uat i on form cont ai ni ng D r. H e nde r s on’ s c onc l us i ons w a s c om pl e t e d f i ve y e a r s l a t e r . S e ve r a l othe re xa m i ni ng d o c to r s c o n f

irm e d th a t B lis s ’s P o s t T r a u m a tic S tr e s s D is o r d e rd id n o t s e v e r e ly l i m i thi s abi l i ty t o w ork, and the dai l y a ct i vi t i es re po rt ed by B l i ss contra di ct ed D r. H e n d e r s o n ’s r e s p o n s e s o n th e e v a lu a tio n f o rm . B e c a u s e “g o o d c a u s e ” e x is te d to re j ec tthe op i ni on of D r. H enders on and the A L J a rt i cul at ed spec i fi c r ea sons that a r e s uppor t e d by the r e c or d, the A L J di d note rrw he n i ta s s i gne d m i ni m a l w e i ght to H e n d e r s o n ’s o p in io n . B l i s s ne xta r gue s tha tthe A L J e rr e d w he n i tf a i l e d t o obt a i n t e s t i m ony f r om a v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r t . Vo c a t i o n a l e x p e r tt e s t i mo n y i s n o tn e c e s s a ry wh e n th e ALJ4

c onc l ude s a c l a i m a ntc a n pe r f or m hi s pa s tr e l e va ntw ork. S e e L uc a s v. S ul l i va n, 91 8 F . 2d 15 67 , 15 73 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 19 90 ). T es t i m on y f rom a vocat i on al expert be c om e s r e l e va nta tthe f i f th s t e p of the e va l ua t i on pr oc e s s , w he n de t e rm i ni ng w hether j ob s e xi sti n the nat i on al ec on om y thatthe cl ai m antcan p er form . S ee W i l s on v. B a rnha r t , 284 F . 3d 1219, 1227 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . B l i s s doe s not chal l enge the fi nd i ng of the A L J thatB l i ss po ss es se d the re si du al funct i on al c apa c i ty t o pe r f

or m hi s pa s tr e l e va ntw or k. D e s pi t e B l i s s ’ s c ont e nt i on t o the c o n tr a ry , te s tim o n y f

r o m a v o c a tio n a l e x p e r t w a s u n n e c e s s a ry . B e c a us e the de c i s i on of the A L J i s s uppor t e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , the ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RME D.