FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J UNE 21 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 05- 1348 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 00 17 7- CV-1 -MP -AK PIERR E PICHETTE, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us JO A NN E B . B ARN HA RT , C omm issio ner of the S oc ia l S ec ur ity

A dm ini str at ion , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Florida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 21, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BL A CK and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Pi er re P ic he tte appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r af fi rm ing the de nia l by

the Com m issio ner of S ocial Secur ity of Pichette’ s application for disabi lity insurance benefits, 42 U. S. C. § 405 (g), and for supplem ental security incom e, 42 U. S. C. § 1 3 8 3 ( c ) ( 3 ) . N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm.

“ W e re vie wthe Co m

m iss ion er ’ s de ci sio n to de te rm ine if it is supp orte d by subs tanti al e vid en ce and b as ed on p ro pe r le ga l st an dard s. ” L ew is v . Ca llahan, 125 F. 3d 1 436, 143 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . “ Su bst an tia l e vid en ce is m or e than asc int ill a an d is suc h r el ev an t 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 c onc lus ion . ” I d. a t 14 40. “ E ve n if the e vid en ce pr ep onde rate s a ga ins t the [Com m issio ner] ’ s finding s, w e m ust affirm if the decision reached is supported by subst antial evidence.” Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990 ). Pi ch ette f

ir st arg ue s th at

the a dm ini str at ive lawj udge ( A L J) e rr ed by ba sin g his de ci sio n de ny ing be ne fi ts, in part , on the uns ign ed psy ch olo gic al r ep ort of Linda Abeles, P h.D . The A LJ m ay have err ed in consid ering this report, w hich show ed anothe r pe rs on’ s handwri tte n in iti al s be sid e D r. Abe le s’ s nam e. S ee 20 C. F. R. §§ 4 04. 1519 n( e) , 416 . 919n (e ) (r equir ing that c onsu ltativ e ev al ua tio n re ports “be pe rs ona lly

r ev ie w ed and s ign ed

by the m ed ic al sourc e w ho a ct ua lly perform ed the exam ination ”). But this error w as harm less. S ee D iorio v. He ckler,3

72 1 F .2d72 6, 7 28 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ) (s ta ti ng th atrem an d n otne ces sa ry wher e ALJ co m m its harm le ss e rr or

in m ak ing e rr one ous state m en ts o f fa ct w hil e ap ply ing proper legal standard). O ur r ev ie wof

the r ec or d sh ow s th at

D r. Abe le s’ s r ep ort i s c um ulativ e to other psy cholog ical evidence prese nted to th e A LJ. H er a ssessm ent was that Pi ch ette ’ s c ur

re nt p sy ch olo gic al c ondi tio n w oul d no t hi nde r him f ro m obt ai nin g or mai n t a i n i n g e mp l o ym e n t , th a th e ap p e a r e dc o mp e t e n tt o man a g e h i s o w n mo n e y, an d th at his pr ogno sis f

or f uture suc ce ss i n th e w orkpl ac e w as f ai r to g ood. B ut the A L J a lso r el ie d onthe Me nta l R es idu al F unc tio na l C ap ac ity A sse ssm en t (M RF CA ) o f Wa yne Co n g er , P h .D. , wh o co n cl u d edth at , d es p i t e P i ch et t e’s m em or y pr obl em s c au se d by

his c ogni tiv e de fi ci ts, he m en ta lly w as c ap ab le of pe rf orm ing sim

ple , r ep et iti ve ta sks on a

sus ta ine d ba sis . I n a ddi tio n, the Augus t 2000 r ep ort of

L es lie Ro thm an , P h. D . , sho w ed that P ic he tte a de quate ly

and independ ently

could perform

daily living activities. A lthou gh Dr. Rothm an opin ed that Pichette suffe red fr om an anxiety

disorder, D r. Rothm an rec omm ended that c ogni tiv e psy ch oth er ap y and a r ed uc tio n inc af

fe ine int ak e w oul d he lp Pi ch et te ’s em ot io na l d is tre ss . The ALJ, fu rth er, d is co un te d P ic he tt e’s own state m en ts a

bout his im pa irm en ts and h is i nabil ity to w ork inthe li ght

of a ll the m edical evidence; and Pichette does not challenge this determ ination . Even4

leaving ou t Dr . Abeles’ s report, subs tantial evidence of Pichette’ s m ental co ndi tio n su

ppor ts the A L J’ s de te rm inatio n. Pichette also argues that the Appeals Council erred by “ igno ring” alleged additio nal, significant evidence of his disabili ty : an MRFC A c om pleted by Dr . Ro thm anin Jul y

200 2. D r. Ro thm an ’ s Ju ly 200 2 M RF CAw as not

pr ovi de d to the A L J, but it w as sub m itt ed

to the Appe al s C ounc il. P ic he tte c ont en ds tha t, a ft er the exclusion of D r. Abeles’ s report, Dr . R othm an’ s MRFCAis the onlyrec ord ev ide nc e of

P ic he tte ’ s m en ta l he al th. W e re vie wde nov o th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n onw he the r re m an d to the Com m issio ner is necessary

based on new evidence. V ega v. C omm ’ r of S oc. Se c. , 265 F . 3d 1 214, 121 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . T o su cc ee d onac la im that r em an d is ap pr opr ia te , P ic he tte w oul d have ha d to sho w( 1) that “ ne w , non cum ulativ e ev ide nc e ex ist s, ” (2 ) that “ the e vid en ce is m at er ia l su chthat a r ea sona ble po ss ib il it y

ex is ts th atth e n ew ev id en ce wo ul d c ha ng e th e ad m in is tra ti ve res ul t,” and (3) that “ goodcause exists for the applicant’ s failure to subm it the evidence at the appr opr ia te a dm ini str at ive le ve l. ” F al ge v. Apf el , 150 F . 3d 1 320, 132 3 ( 11th Cir. 1998 ). W e doubt th at D r. Rothm an’ s July2002 MRFC A is “ new e vidence” or that it is “m at er ia l. ” I t i s ba se d onD r. Ro thm an ’ s on e- hour Augus t 20 00 e xa m inatio nThe 2002 MRFCA state d that Pichette was e x tremely limit ed in his ability

(1) to under stand, 1 reme mber, a

nd car ry out detailed instructions; (2) to work a r egular sche dule due to his fre quent nee d for longrest per iods caused by his psy chologi ca l condition; and (3) to set re alistic g oals or make plans independe ntly

of others. Al tho ugh Pic he tte ’s lawye r’ s le tte r to the Ap pe a ls Counc il a bo ut the MRF CA is date d 1 8 July 2 2001, this date appe ars to be a ty pog raphic al er

ror be cause (1) the letter shows a fax date to the Appea ls Council of 18 J uly 2003, and (2) the MRFCA wa s not completed until 2002.

5 of P ic he tte : this e xa m inatio n and i ts a cc om pany ing r ep ort w er e doc um en te d inthe proceedings before the AL J. T he July 2002 assessm ent contained new conclusio ns based on evidence that the AL J had consid ered. A nd Dr. Rothm an

1 did not e xpl ai n w hy

he c am e to the se c onc lus ion s ne ar ly tw o y ears a ft er

the ex am inatio n. B ut r eg ar dle ss, P ic he tte ha s no t atte m pte d to sho wgoo d c au se f or hi s fa il ur e to su bm itDr. Rot hm an ’s MRFC A in th e p ro ceed in gs be fo re t he ALJ. T he MRFC Ais da te d 17 Jul y 200 2, but

the A L J di d no t r en de r his de ci sio n un til N ove m be r 2002 . A nd P ic he tte ’ s law y er did not sub m it thi s e vid en ce to the Appe al s C ounc il unt il 18 July 200 3. P ic he tte giv es no r ea son fo r the tard ine ss o f

2 thi s su bm iss ion . T he Appe al s C ounc il co m m itt ed no e rr or in re fu sin g to r em an d th is cas e to th e ALJ fo r co ns id erat io n o f Dr. Ro th m an ’s Ju ly 200 2 M RFCA. AFFIR MED.