FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T FEB RUARY 9, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 87 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 8 :1 0- cv -0 16 68 -TGW

KRISTIE REYNOLDS-BUCKLEY,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

COMM ISSI ONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 9, 2 01 2)
Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:K r i st ie Reynol ds -Bu ck le y ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r affi rm in g t h e

Co m m is si on er of th e So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on ’s (“ th e Co m m is si on er”) de ni al
of di sa bi li ty, di sa bi li ty in su ran ce be ne fit s (“ DIB”), an d su pp le m en ta l se cu rit y in co m e (“ SSI” ), 42 U.S.C. §§ 40 5( g) , 13 83 (c)( 3)

. On ap pe al , Reynol ds -Bu ck le y arg ue s th at
th e ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge (“ ALJ”) erre d by di sc ou nt in g th e m ed ic al op in io n of Dr.
Nad im Khan reg ard in g h er h eart co nd it io n. Aft er t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we affi rm

. W e rev ie w a Co m

m is si on er’s de ci si on to de te rm in e whe th er it is su pp or te d by

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce an d whe th er th e pr op er le ga l st an da rd s were ap pl ie d. Crawf or d

v. Co m m ’r of So c. Sec., 36 3 F.3 d 11 55 , 11 58 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ). “ Su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce
is m or e th an a sc in ti ll a an d is su ch rel e v a n t e v i d en ce as a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld

acce pt as a de qu at e to su pp or t a co nc lu si on .” Id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ W e m ay no t
de ci de f a c t s an ew, rewei gh th e ev id en ce, or su bs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t fo r th at of th e
Co m m is si on er.” Dy er v. Barn ha rt, 39 5 F.3 d 12 06 , 12 10 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ta ti on

an d br ack et s om it te d)

. W e rev ie w th e de ci si on of th e ALJ as th e Co m m is si on er’s
fin al de ci si on whe n th e ALJ de ni es be ne fit s an d th e App eal s Co un ci l de ni es rev ie w
of th e ALJ’s d eci si on . Dou gh ty v. Apfe l, 2 45 F.3d 12 74 , 12 78 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ).
The So ci al Secu rit y Reg ul at io ns ou tl in e a fiv e-s te p pr oc es s us ed to de te rm in e
whe th er a cl ai m an t is di sa bl ed

. 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 52 0( a)(4 ). Und er th e fir st st ep , th e
cl a i man t ha s th e bu rd en to sh ow th at sh e is no t cu rren tl y en ga ge d in su bs ta nt ia l

2ga in fu l act iv it y
. Id

. § 40 4.1 52 0( a)(4 )(i ). Nex t, th e cl ai m an t m us t sh ow th at sh e ha s

a se ve re im

pa irment. Id

. § 40 4.1 52 0( a)(4 )(i i). Sh e th en m us t at te m pt to sh ow th at th e
im pa irment m eet s or eq ua ls th e cri te ria co nt ai ne d in on e o f t h e Lis ti ng s of

I mp a i r men t s. Id

. § 40 4.1 52 0( a)(4 )(i ii ). If th e cl ai m an t can no t m eet or eq ua l th e
cri te ria , sh e m

us t sh ow th at sh e ha s a n i mp a i rm en t whi ch pr ev en ts he r fro m

p erfo rm in g he r pa st rel ev an t wor k. Id

. § 40 4.1 52 0( a)(4 )(i ii ) an d (iv ). O n c e a
cl ai m an t es ta bl is he s th at sh e c a nn ot pe rfo rm he r pa st rel ev an t wor k du e to so m e

se ve re im pa irment, th e bu rd en sh ift s to th e Co m m is si on er to sh ow th at s i g n i f i c an t

nu m be rs of job s ex is t i n t he na ti on al eco no m y whi ch th e cl ai m an t ca n p erfo rm . Id. § 4 04 .15 20 (a)( 4) (v ).
The So ci al Secu rit y Reg ul at io ns al so pr ov id e gu id el in e s f o r t h e ALJ to us e
whe n ev al ua t in g m ed ic al op in io n ev id en ce. See 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 52 7. The ALJ

co ns id ers m an y fact or s w h e n weig hi ng su ch ev id en ce, in cl ud in g th e ex am in in g
rel at io ns hi p, th e tre at m en t rel at io ns hi p, whe th er an o p i n i on is well -s up po rte d,
whe th er an op in io n is co ns is te nt wit h th e reco rd , an d a do ct or ’s sp eci al iz at io n. Id

. §

40 4.1 52 7( d)

. Gen eral ly, th e op in io ns of ex am in in g or tre at in g ph y si ci an s are gi ve n

m or e wei gh t t ha n n on -ex am in in g or no n- tre at in g ph y si ci an s un le ss “ go od cau se ” is
sh own

. See id

. § 40 4.1 52 7( d) (1 ), (2 ); Lewis v. Cal la ha n, 12 5 F.3 d 14 36 , 14 40 (1 1t h
Ci r. 19 97 ). Treat in g so ur ces are gi ve n m or e weig ht be cau se “ th es e so ur ces are li ke ly

3to be th e m ed ic al pr of es si on al s m os t abl e to pr ov id e a de ta il ed , lo ng it ud in al pi ct ur e
of [th e cl ai m an t’s] m ed ic al im pa irment( s) .” 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 52 7( d) (2 ). To qu al ify

as a tre at in g so ur ce, th e ph y si ci an m us t ha ve an on go in g tre at m en t rel at io ns hi p wit h
th e cl ai m an t. See 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 50 2. W e ha ve fo un d “ go od cau se ” to affo rd le ss weig ht to a tre at in g ph y si ci an ’s op in io n whe re th e op in io n was co nc lu so ry or
in co ns is te nt wit h th e ph y si ci an ’s own m ed ic al reco rd s o r w h ere th e ev id en ce

su pp or te d a co nt rary fin di ng

. Le w i s , 1 2 5 F.3 d at 14 40

. The ALJ m ay di sc ou nt a

tr ea tin g phy sician ’s rep or t “ whe n it is no t acco m pa ni ed by ob

jecti ve m ed ic al ev id ence

or is who ll y co nc lu so ry .” Crawf or d, 36 3 F.3 d at 11 59 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Bec au se

ou r l i mi t ed rev ie w pr ecl ud es us fro m rewei gh in g th e ev id en ce, whe n th e ALJ

art ic ul at es sp eci fic reas on s fo r fai li ng to gi ve th e op in io n of a tre at in g ph y si ci an

co nt ro ll in g weig ht , an d th os e reas on s are su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, th ere is

no rev ers ib le erro r. Mo or e v . Barn ha rt, 4 05 F.3d 12 08 , 12 12 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ).

In th is cas e, reg ard le ss of whe th er Dr. Kha n qu al ifi ed as a tre at in g so ur ce, th e
ALJ ha d go od cau se an d pr op erl y art ic ul at ed reas on s, su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce, fo r as si gn in g le ss weig ht to th e op in io n of Dr. Kha n th an to th e

co nt rad ic to ry op in io ns of ot he r m ed i c a l p ro fes si on al s. In de ed , Dr . Kh an ’s o pi ni on

was in co ns is te nt wit h th e m ed ic al ev id en ce on th e reco rd an d was n ot su pp or te d b y

an y tre at m en t no te s or by an an al y si s of an y te st res ul ts

. Not ab ly, Dr. Lou is Cas tro ,

4a card io lo gi st , i nd ic at ed th at Reynol ds -Bu ck le y was “ real ly no t co gn iz an t” of he r

he art raci ng whe n he ex am ine d he r in 20 07

. Afte r di ag no si ng Reynol ds -Bu ck le y wit h

pe rs is te nt ta ch y card ia an d ru nn in g nu m ero us card ia c te st s, Dr. Caru so reco m m en de d

on ly “ ris k fact or m od ifi cat io n an d m ed ic al th erap y .” In ad di ti on , Dr. Ali y a Rat ho re’s

rep or ts in di cat e th at Reynol ds -Bu ck le y ha d be en ab le to co nt ro l he r ta ch y card ia by

ta ki ng m ed ic at io n. Mo reo ve r, aft er a m on it or in g te st in Feb ru ary 20 09 rev eal ed th at Reynol ds -Bu ck le y ha d a no rm al ba se li ne si nu s rh y th m wit h in te rm it te nt ep is od es of
si nu s ta ch y card ia , Dr. Su ni l G u p t a r eco m m en de d on ly th at Reynol ds -Bu ck le y ta ke
be ta bl oc ke rs or cal ci um ch an ne l bl oc ke rs , an d di d no t in di cat e an y res tri ct io ns in he r
ab i l i t y t o w o rk

. Bec au se Dr. Kha n pr ov id ed no in de pe nd en t tre at m en t no te s or

an al y si s of te st res ul ts to su pp or t hi s co nc lu si on s ab ou t th e se ve rit y of Reynol ds -Bu ck le y ’s co nd it io n, an d th os e co nc lu si on s co nt rad ic te d Dr. G up ta ’s

te st -s up po rte d co nc lu si on s fro m le ss th an th ree m on th s earl ie r, th e ALJ di d no t err in

at ta ch in g l it tl e wei gh t t o Dr. Kh an ’s op in io n.
Alt ho ug h Re yn o l d s- Bu ck le y arg ue s th at , ba se d on th e Feb ru ary 20 09
ech oc ard io gr am , he r co nd it io n h a d d e t e r io rat ed whe n sh e sa w Dr. Gup ta in 20 09

c o mp ared to whe n sh e fir st sa w Dr. Caru so in 20 07 , sh e ha s no t sh own th at h e r
di sa bi li ty ha d be co m e so se ve re th at it ren de red he r un a b l e t o w or k. McC ru te r v.
Bo w e n , 79 1 F.2 d 15 44 , 15 47 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 86 ) (h ol di ng th at “ th e ‘sev eri ty’ of a

5m ed ic al ly as cert ai ne d di sa bi li ty m us t be m eas ur ed in te rm s of it s effe ct up on ab il it y

to wor k, an d no t si m

pl y in te rm s of de vi at io n fro m pu rel y m ed ic al st an da rd s of bo di ly

pe rfec ti on or no rmali ty.”). Not ab ly, th e ba se li ne rh y th m of 89 be at s pe r m in ut e

reco rd ed by th e m on it or i n g t e st was act ua ll y an im pr ov em en t fro m th e
11 0- be a t s -p er-m in ut e rat e fro m th e 20 07 el ect ro card io gr am , an d Dr. Gup ta di d no t pl ace an y res tri ct io ns on Reynol ds -Bu ck le y ’s ab il it y to wor k. Fi na ll y , al th ou gh Reynol ds -Bu ck le y co nt en ds th at th e ALJ “ ch erry-pi ck ed ” th e m ed ic al ev id en ce an d

su bs ti tu te d hi s own jud gm en t fo r th at of th e m ed ic al pr of es si on al s, th e reco rd refl ect s
th at th e ALJ co ns id ered al l of th e m ed ic al ev id en ce, in cl ud in g a qu es ti on na ire by Dr.
Kha n, an d Reynol ds -Bu ck le y ha s no t sh own th at an y m ed ic al ev id en ce, as id e fro m
D r

. K ha n’s, co nt rad ic te d th e ALJ’s co nc lu si on

. Bec au se th e ALJ di d no t e r r i n weig hi ng th e m ed ic al op in io n e vi de nc e, we affi rm

. AFFIRMED.

6