[DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 16 02 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :1 0- cv -0 01 54 -MP -GRJ

TERESA D. HU GHES,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

COMM ISSI ONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINIS TRATION,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st 2, 2 01 2)

Befo re MAR CUS, FAY, an d EDMONDSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.
PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-16021 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 1 of 11Teres a D. Hug he s ap pe al s fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s o r d er affi rm in g th e

Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e’s (“ ALJ”) de ni al of di sa bi li ty in su ran ce be ne fit s (“ DIB”) ,

pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 40 5( g)

. On ap pe al , Hug he s arg ue s th at : (1 ) aft er th e se co nd

rem a n d b y t h e di st ric t co ur t, th e ALJ erre d in di sc ou nt in g Hug he s’s tre at in g
ph y si ci an s’ op in io ns th at sh e is in cap ab le of fu ll -ti m e wor k; (2 ) th e ALJ vi ol at ed th e

cred ib il it y pa in st a n d a r d e st ab li sh ed by th is Co ur t whe n th e ALJ di sr eg ard ed
Hug he s’s te st im on y reg ard in g pa in to th e ex te nt th at he r te st im on y was in co ns is te nt

wit h th e ALJ’s de te rm in at io n o f Hug he s’s res id ua l fu nc ti on al cap aci ty; an d (3 ) th e

ALJ erre d by no t pr op erl y co ns id eri ng Hug he s’s rece ip t of F l o rid a St at e Dis ab il it y

Ret ire m en t b en efi ts . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we affi rm

.
W e r e v i e w a So ci al Secu rit y de ci si on to de te rm in e if it is su pp or te d by

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce an d ba se d on pr op er le ga l st an da rd s. Crawf or d v. Co m

m ’r, 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 co ns is ts of “ su ch rel ev an t

ev id en ce as a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld acce pt as ad eq ua te to su pp or t a co nc lu si on .”

Id

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

. The bu rd en res ts w i t h th e cl ai m an t to pr ov e th at sh e is

di sa bl ed an d e nt it le d t o S oc ia l Se cu rit y be ne fit s. See 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 51 2( a).

An in di vi du al cl ai m in g So ci al Secu rit y di sa bi li ty be ne fit s m us t pr ov e th at sh e

is di sa bl ed , se e Jo ne s v. Apf el , 19 0 F.3d 12 24 , 12 28 (1 1t h Cir. 19 99 ), an d for DIB ,

m us t de m on st rat e sh e was di sa bl ed on or be fo re h er d at e la st in su red , s ee Mo or e v.

2 Case: 11-16021 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 2 of 11B a r n h a rt, 40 5 F.3 d 12 08 , 1 21 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). “ The So ci al Secu rit y reg ul at io n s

pr ov id e a fiv e-s te p se qu en ti al ev al ua ti on pr oc es s fo r de te rm in in g if a cl ai m an t ha s

pr ov en th at sh e is di sa bl ed .” Jo ne s, 1 90 F.3d at 1 22 8. A cl ai m an t m us t s ho w th at :
(1 ) sh e is no t p erfo rm in g s ub st an ti al ga in fu l ac ti vi ty;
(2 ) sh e h as a se ve re i m pa irment;
(3 ) th e im

pa irment or c om

bi na ti on of im

pa irments m eet s or eq ua ls an im pa irment l is te d i n t he reg ul at io ns ;
(4 ) sh e can no t re tu rn to pa st work ;
(5 ) sh e can n o t pe rfo rm ot he r wor k ba se d on he r ag e, ed uc at io n, an d

ex pe rie nc e.

Ph il li ps v. Barn ha rt, 35 7 F.3 d 12 32 , 12 37 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ); 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 52 0; 20

C.F.R. § 41 6.9 20

. Sp eci fic al ly, at St ep Fi ve , a cl ai m an t m us t sh ow th at sh e do es no t

ret ai n th e res id ua l fu nc ti on al cap aci ty (“ RFC” ) to pe rfo rm ot he r wor k ba se d on he r

ag e, ed uc at io n, an d e xp eri en ce. 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .15 20 (a)( 4) (v ).

In or de r to qu al ify fo r DIB, an in di vi du al m us t pr ov e th at he r di sa bi li ty ex is te d

pr io r to th e en d of her in su red st at us pe rio d, an d, afte r in su red st at us is lo st , a cl ai m

wil l be de ni ed de sp it e he r di sa bi li ty. See Dem an dr e v. Cal i f a no , 59 1 F.2 d 10 88 ,
10 90 -9 1 (5 th Cir . 19 79 ); 42 U.S.C. §§ 41 6( i), 4 23 (c)( 1) ; 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .13 0. 1

I n Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 1 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down be fore October 1, 1981.

3 Case: 11-16021 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 3 of 11“ [T]here is no rig id req ui rem en t th at th e ALJ spe ci fic al ly refe r to ev ery pi ece

of ev id en ce in hi s de ci si on , so lo ng as th e ALJ’s de ci si on

. . . is no t a br oa d reject io n

whi ch is ‘not en ou gh to en ab le [u s] to co nc lu de th at [th e ALJ] co ns id ered he r m ed ic al

c o n d i t i o n a s a who le .’ ” Dy er v. Barn ha rt, 39 5 F.3 d 12 06 , 12 11 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 )
(q uo ti ng Fo ot e v . Cha te r, 67 F.3d 15 53 , 15 61 (11 th Cir . 19 95 )).

“ [T]he op in io n o f a t reat in g p hysic ia n i s en ti tl ed to su bs ta nt ia l weig ht un le ss

go o d cau se ex is ts fo r no t he ed in g th e tre at in g ph y si ci an ’s di ag no si s.” Edwar ds v.

Su ll iv an , 93 7 F.2 d 58 0, 58 3 (1 1 t h C ir. 19 91 ); se e 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 52 7( c) (s ta ti ng

th at , g en eral ly, mo r e weig ht is gi ve n to op in io ns fro m tre at in g so ur ces ). Howev er,

we h a v e 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 o pi ni on

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 or whe re th e ev id en ce su pp or te d a co nt rary fin di ng

. See Lewis v. Cal la ha n,

12 5 F. 3 d 14 36 , 14 40 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 97 ). Fu rth erm or e, th e ALJ “ is free to reject th e

op in io n of an y ph y si ci an whe n th e ev id en ce su pp or ts a co nt rary co nc lu si on .” Sryock

v. Hec kl er, 7 64 F.2d 83 4, 8 35 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.
Fi rs t, we fin d no m eri t to Hug he s’s cl ai m th at th e ALJ erre d in di sc ou nt in g th e

op in io n s o f H ug he s’s tre at in g fam il y ph y si ci an , Dr. May Mo nt ric ha rd , co nc ern in g

4 Case: 11-16021 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 4 of 11Hug he s’s ab il it y to work

. Alt ho ug h o n a t l eas t s ev en oc cas io ns be twee n 20 02 an d

2

20 09 Dr. Mo nt ric ha rd ex p r e s s ed th e op in io n th at Hug he s was co m pl et el y di sa bl ed

an d in cap ab le of em

pl oym en t, no ne of th es e op in io ns ci te d to sp eci fic ob jecti ve

m ed ic al ev id en ce or te st res ul ts or refe ren ced an y sp eci fic in fo rm at io n reg ard in g th e

res ul ts of ph y si cal or m en ta l ev al ua ti on s in su pp or t of th os e op in io ns

. Thu s, th e ba si s

fo r Dr. Mo nt ric ha rd ’s op in io ns rem ai ns un cl ear. Fu rth er, th ree of Dr. Mo nt ric ha rd ’s

op in io ns -- th e Ja nu ary 27 , 20 05 le tt er to th e Fl or id a Ret ire m en t Sy st em , th e Ju ne 7,

20 05 res id ua l fu nc ti on al cap aci ty ass es sm en t, an d t he Feb ru ary 9 , 2 00 9 a ss es sm en t

fo r th e Fl or id a Ret ire m en t Sy st em -- do no t ap pe ar to be ba se d up on Hug he s’s m en ta l

an d ph y si cal co nd it io ns wit hi n th e t im e pe rio d at is su e in th e in st an t cas e, Ju ly 20 ,
19 99 , to Decem

be r 31 , 20 04 , th e da te th at Hug he s was la st in su red

. Thu s, th es e

op in io ns were no t pa rti cu la rly rel ev an t to whe th er Hug he s was di sa bl ed fo r pu rp os es

of DIB. See Dem an dr e, 59 1 F .2d at 1 09 0- 91

.
Mo reo ve r, su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e ALJ’s d e t e rm in at io n th at Dr.

Mo nt ric ha rd ’s op in io ns reg ard in g Hug he s’s ab il it y to wor k were co nt rad ic te d by

As an initial matter, althoug h Hug hes mentions that the AL J err ed by reje cting her 2 trea ting phy sicians’ medic al opinions that she was not ca pable of full-time work, Hug hes only prese nts arg ument reg arding the medica l opinions of Dr. Montrichar d. Thus, Hug hes has abandone d any

challeng e to the AL J ’s dec ision to give less we ight to opinions of Hug hes’s other trea ting phy sicians. See Gr eenbr iar, L td. v. Cit y of Alaba ster, 881 F .2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir.1989) (stating that passing ref ere nces a re insuff icient to raise issues f

or appe al and suc h issues are deeme d abandone d).

5

Case: 11-16021 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 5 of 11ot he r m ed ic al ev id en ce, in cl ud in g Dr. Mo nt ric h a r d ’s own st at em en ts an d th os e of

ot he r tre at in g ph y si ci an s. Fo r ex am pl e, in th e Octo be r 28 , 20 04 fo rm , Dr.

Mo nt ric ha rd op in ed th at Hug he s co u l d l i f t no m or e th an 20 po un ds , bu t in th e

Decem be r 14 , 20 09 res id ua l fu nc ti on al cap aci ty as se ss m en t pr ov id ed to co un se l fo r

th e ti me p e rio d of Nov em be r 11 , 19 99 , to Decem

be r 31 , 20 04 , Dr. Mo nt ric ha rd

op in ed th at Hug he s was un ab le to li ft m or e th an 2 po un ds

. On nu m ero us oc cas io ns ,
Dr. Ph il li p K. Sp rin ge r, Hug h e s ’s tre at in g ps y ch ia tri st an d pa in m an ag em en t

sp eci al is t, op in ed th at Hug h e s ’s o v eral l m en ta l he al th sh owe d im pr ov em en t, of

te n

si gn ifi can t, fro m pr ev io us se ss io ns

. Oth er tre at in g ph y si ci an s, Dr. Ja m es Atch is on

an d Dr. And rew Co rd is ta , no te d a f t e r Sep te m

be r 20 01 ph y si cal ex am in at io ns th at
Hug he s ha d a no rm al ga it , ne ga ti ve st rai gh t le g rai se on bo th si de s, an d no de fo rm it y ,
la xi ty, or weak ne ss in he r cer vi cal or l um ba r sp in e o r ex tre m it ie s.

Dr. Mo nt ric ha rd fu rth er op in ed th at Hug he s’s pa in was so in cap aci ta ti ng th at
Hug he s was u n a b l e to pe rfo rm m os t act iv it ie s of da il y li vi ng an d co ul d no t wor k a

no rm al ei gh t-h ou r wor kd ay , sh e ha d ex tre m e l i mi ta ti on s in he r ab il it y to m ai nt ai n

at te nt io n an d co nc en tra ti on fo r ex te nd ed pe rio ds of ti m e, an d ha d m ark ed res tri ct io ns

in he r ab il it y to in te ract ap pr op ria te ly wit h th e ge ne ral pu bl ic , bu t th es e op in io ns were

al so co nt rad ic te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, in cl ud in g by Hug he s he rs el f. Hug he s

co ns is te nt ly rep or te d to do ct or s an d te st ifi ed at he ari ng s th at sh e was ab le to ta ke care

6 Case: 11-16021 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 6 of 11of he r pe rs on al ne ed s, co ok si m pl e m eal s, do la un dr y , was h di sh es , go sh op pi ng whe n

ne ces sa ry , han dl e h er o wn fi na nc es , and dri ve he rs el f to go sh op pi ng or to do ct or ’s

ap po in tm en ts

.
Ass es sm en ts by co ns ul ti ng ph y si c i a n s , ps y ch ia tri st s, an d ps y ch ol og is ts al so

co nt rad ic te d Dr. Mo nt ric ha rd ’s op in i o n s reg ard in g Hug he s’s cap ab il it ie s to wor k

fu ll -ti m e. Fo r ex am

pl e, on M a rch 27 , 20 03 , Dr. Lan ce Ch od os h de te rm in ed th at ,
al th ou gh Hug he s’s ne ck ha d m od erat e de crea se in ran ge of m ot io n, al l joi nt s in

ex tre m it ie s ha d fu ll ran ge of m ot io n; he r ran ge of m ot io n fo r he r cerv ic al an d lu m ba r

sp in e were wit hi n th e no rm al ran ge ; th ere was no de fo rm it y , te nd ern es s, or pa ras pi na l

m us c u l a r sp as m of he r ba ck ; st rai gh t le g rai se s were ne ga ti ve bi la te ral ly; sh e ha d

n o r mal g ro ss m ot or fu nc ti on in al l ex tre m it ie s, no rm al m an ua l de xt eri ty, an d go od

co or di na ti on ; sh e ha d a no rm al ga in , wit h he el to to e walk ; an d sh e was ab le to sq ua t

an d ri se

.
In ad di ti on , res ul ts of m ed ic al te st s pr ov id ed su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce to su pp or t

th e ALJ’s d et erm in at io n to gi ve le ss weig ht to Dr. Mo nt ric ha rd ’s op in io ns

. The

res ul ts of x- rays ta ke n of Hug he s’s cerv ic al sp in e on Ju ly 12 , 20 01 , sh owe d th at he r

cerv ic al sp in e was no rm al , wi th a m il d de crea se in d i s c s p ace at th e L4-5 le ve l an d

na rro win g at th e L5-S 1 whi ch was un ch an ge d fro m J ul y 27 , 19 99 MRI res ul ts

. X-rays ta ke n of Hug he s’s cerv ic al sp in e du rin g a Ju ne 3, 20 01 em erg en cy ro om vi si t

7 Case: 11-16021 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 7 of 11al so rev eal ed no acu te ab no rm al it ie s. Ju ne 2, 20 04 MRI s of Hug he s’s lu m ba r an d

cerv ic al sp in e sh owe d m il d na rro win g at th e L4-5 an d L5-S 1 le ve l s, bu t rem ai ni ng

os se ou s st ru ct ur es ap pe ared un rem ark ab le an d, al th ou gh th e rad io lo gi st no te d so m e

m il d de ge ne rat iv e ch an ge s, th ere was no ev id en ce of acu te bo dy ab no rm al it y

. Fo r al l

of th es e rea so ns , th e ALJ d id no t er r by dis co un ti ng Dr. Mo nt ric ha rd ’s op in io ns

.
Nex t, we are un pe rs ua de d by Hug he s’s arg um en t th at th e ALJ vi ol at ed ou r

Co ur t’s cr ed ib il it y

pa in st an da rd . Purs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 4 23 ,
An in di vi du al ’s st at em en t as to pai n or oth er sym pt om s sh al l no t alo ne be co nc lu si ve ev id en ce of d i s ab il it y as de fin ed in th is se ct io n; th ere
m us t be m ed ic al si gn s an d fin di ng s, es ta bl is he d by m ed ic al ly acce pt ab le cl in ic al or l ab or at or y di ag no st ic te ch ni qu es , wh ic h sh ow th e ex is te nc e of a m ed ic al im

pa irment th at res ul ts fro m an at om ic al , ph y si ol og ic al , or ps y ch ol og ic al ab no rm al it ie s whi ch co ul d reas on ab ly be ex pe ct ed to pr oduc e th e pa in or ot he r sym pt om s al le ge d an d whi ch , whe n co ns id ered wit h al l ev id e n c e req ui red to be fu rn is he d un de r th is pa rag rap h (in c l u d i n g s ta te m en ts of th e in di vi du al or hi s ph y si ci an as to th e in te ns it y an d pe rs is te nc e of su ch pa in or ot he r sym pt om s whi ch m ay
reas on ab ly be acce pt ed as co ns is te nt wit h th e med i c a l si gn s an d fin d i n g s ), wou ld le ad to a co nc lu si on th at th e in di vi du al is un de r a di sa bi li ty. Object iv e m ed ic al ev id en c e of pa in or ot he r sym pt om s
es ta bl is he d by m ed ic al ly acce pt ab le cl in ic al or la bo rat or y te ch ni qu es (fo r ex am pl e, de te rio rat in g ner ve or m us cl e ti ss ue ) m

us t be con si de red in reac hi ng a c on cl us io n as to whe th er th e in di vi du al is un de r a di sa bi li ty.

8 Case: 11-16021 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 8 of 1142 U.S.C. § 42 3( d) (5 )(A). See al so 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 52 8( a) (s ta ti ng th at a cl ai m an t’s

“ st at em en ts al on e are no t en ou gh to es ta bl is h th at th ere is a ph ys i c a l or m en ta l

im pa irment” ).

In a cas e whe re a cl ai m an t at te mp t s to es ta bl is h di sa bi li ty th ro ug h he r own

te st im on y co nc ern in g pa in or o t h e r s u bjec ti ve syste m s, we ap pl y a th ree- pa rt “ pa in

st an da rd .” Hol t v. Su ll iv an , 92 1 F.2 d 12 21 , 12 23 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 91 ). “ The pa in

s ta nd ard req ui res (1 ) ev id en ce of an un de rlyin g m ed ic al co nd it io n an d ei th e r ( 2 )

ob jecti ve m ed ic al ev id en ce th at co nf irms th e se ve rit y of th e al le ge d pa in ari si ng fro m

th at co nd it io n or (3 ) th at th e ob jecti ve ly de te rm in ed m ed i c a l c o n d it io n is of su ch a

se ve rit y th at it can be reas on ab ly ex pe ct ed to gi ve ris e to th e al le ge d pa in .” Id

. If th e

ALJ de ci de s no t to cred it a cl ai m an t’s su bjec ti ve t e s t i m on y co nc ern in g pa in , sh e

“ m us t ar ti cu la te ex pl ic it an d a de qu at e rea so ns for do in g s o.” Id.

Here, su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e ALJ’s de te rm in at io n th at Hug he s’s

m ed ic al l y de te rm in ab le im pa irments co ul d reas on ab ly be ex pe ct ed to cau se he r

al le ge d sym

pt om s. Howev er, su bs ta n t i a l ev id en ce al so su pp or ts th e ALJ’s

de te rm in at io n th at Hug he s’s st at em en ts co nc ern in g th e in te ns it y , pe rs is te n c e , a nd

li m it in g effe ct s of th os e s ym p t o ms were no t cred ib le to th e ex te nt th at th ey were

in co ns is te nt wit h the A L J’ s fu nc tio na l ca

pa ci ty as se ss m en t an d th e ob jecti ve ev id en ce

in th e reco rd

. As we’ve di sc us se d ab ov e, th e ob jecti ve m ed ic al ev id en ce sh owe d on ly

9 Case: 11-16021 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 9 of 11m in or de ge ne rat iv e ch an ge s and no acu te ab no rm al it ie s, and ph y si cal ex am in at io ns

de m on st rat ed m os tl y no rm al r e s u l t s i n te rm s of ran ge of m ot io n, ga it , he el an d to e

walk , a nd ab il it y to sq ua t an d rai se . An d, as we’ve al so al read y de ta il ed , Hu gh es ’s

own st at em en ts reg ard in g he r act iv it ie s of da il y li vi ng at le as t pa rti al ly co nt rad ic te d

he r cl ai m s re ga rd in g t he li m it in g e ffec ts of h er s y m pt om s. What ’s m or e, th e ALJ’s

art ic ul at ed reas on s fo r on ly pa rti al ly cred it in g Hug he s’s su bjec ti ve st at em en ts

reg ard in g her sym

pt om s were ad eq ua te , as th e ALJ arti cu la te d sp eci fic m ed ic al te st

res ul ts th at were no t co m pa ti bl e wit h H u g h e s’s st at em en ts , ci te d to ph y si cal

ex am in at io ns by Dr. Mo nt ric ha rd an d Dr. Ch od os h th at were rel at iv el y no rm al , an d

co nt ras te d Hug he s’s st at em en ts ab ou t he r sym pt om s w i th he r rep or te d act iv it ie s of

da il y li vi ng

.
Fi na ll y , we reject Hug he s’s cl ai m th at t h e A LJ e r red by no t pr op erl y

co ns id eri ng Hug he s’s rece ip t of Fl or id a St at e Dis ab il it y Ret ire m en t be ne fit s.

Gen eral ly, “ [t]he fin di ng s of di sa bi li ty by an ot he r ag en cy, al th ou gh no t bi nd in g on

th e [Co m m is si on er,] are en ti tl ed to gr eat weig ht .” Bl oo ds wor th v. Heck le r, 70 3 F.2 d

12 33 , 12 41 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 83 ). Eve n whe n an ag en cy ’s de fin it io n of di sa bi li ty di ffer s

fro m th at of so ci al se cu rit y la w, i f th e a g e n c y ’s d is ab il it y de fin it io n is co ns tru ed in

a si m il ar m an ne r as th e de fin it io n of di sa bi li ty un de r so ci al se cu rit y la w, it is erro r fo r

10 Case: 11-16021 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 10 of 11th e ALJ to no t gi ve th at ag en c y’s fin di ng of di sa bi li ty gr eat weig ht

. Fal co n v.

Heck le r, 73 2 F .2d 82 7, 8 31 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ).

In th is ca s e , su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e ALJ’s de ci si on to gi ve li tt le
weig ht to th e St at e of Fl or id a’s di sa bi li ty de te rm in at io n. Alt ho ug h Hug he s’s

su bm it te d th e St at e of Fl or id a’s Mar ch 7, 20 05 di sa bi li ty de te rm in at io n, th at

do cu m en t co ns is te d of a si ng le pa ge th at st at ed th at Hug he s ha d be en ap pr ov ed fo r

“ Reg ul ar Dis ab il it y Ret ire m en t” bu t pr o v i d e d no ex pl an at io n fo r th e ba si s of th at

de te rm in at io n. As th e ALJ no te d, Hug he s of fere d no sp eci fic or ad di ti on al ev id en ce

in co nju nc ti on wit h the State ’s de te rm in at io n th at wou ld le ad to a di ffer en t co nc lu si on

th an th at reac he d i n t he ALJ’s de ci si on

.
AFFIRMED.

11 Case: 11-16021 Date Filed: 08/02/2012 Page: 11 of 11