[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-11386

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:15-cv-00622-JBT

DAVID ALLEN SATERNUS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(December 6, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-11386 Date Filed: 12/06/2016 Page: 1 of 8 
2

David Saternus appeals from the district court’s order affirming the

Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ’s”) denial of his application for disability 

insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). He argues that the ALJ improperly 

gave little weight to the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Nadal. He argues 

that the ALJ did not properly articulate a good cause to discount Dr. Nadal’s 

opinion and further erred by assigning significant weight to the testimony of a nonexamining physician, Dr. Molis.

Saternus’s initially applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of 

the Social Security Act due to several medical problems that gave him back pain. 

He sought a hearing before an ALJ after the Commissioner’s initial review found 

that he was not eligible for disability insurance benefits. Before the ALJ, Saternus 

submitted the report of Dr. Nadal. Dr. Nadal’s report noted that Saternus’s pain 

was constant and severe enough to prevent him from walking a half of a city block 

without rest or intense pain. She also estimated that Saternus could only sit for 

thirty minutes or stand for ten minutes without pain. Between the pain he 

experienced and the sedation from his medications, Dr. Nadal opined that Saternus 

would be off task for at least a quarter of any work day and would be absent from 

work for more than four days in a month. Nevertheless, Dr. Nadal’s records 

indicate that she had recommended that Saternus go on short bike rides or use a 

treadmill to lose weight.

Case: 16-11386 Date Filed: 12/06/2016 Page: 2 of 8 
3

Dr. Edmund Molis’s report to the Social Security Administration on 

Saternus’s residual functional capacity was also presented to the ALJ. Dr. Molis, a 

non-treating physician, opined that Saternus’s allegations of pain were partially 

credible since his afflictions could result in such limitations, but that some of his 

allegations were disproportional to the expected severity and duration of his 

medical ailments. Dr. Molis judged at Saternus was still fit for light work and thus 

not disabled. On this basis, the vocational expert who came before the ALJ was 

able to suggest several light jobs for which Saternus would be qualified, including 

a mail clerk, gate attendant or parking lot cashier.

The ALJ concluded that Saternus was not entitled to disability insurance 

benefits because he had residual functional capacity for light work. The ALJ 

afforded little weight to Dr. Nadal’s report, finding it was not supported by medical 

rationale and was of limited credibility. In particular, the ALJ viewed Dr. Nadal’s 

opinions on Saternus’s functional capacity to be inconsistent with CT and MRI 

scans showing only mild inflammation and a small disc bulge. Furthermore, Dr. 

Nadal’s opinion was inconsistent with her own recommendation that Saternus 

exercise using a bike or treadmill. Instead, the ALJ gave significant weight to Dr. 

Molis’s report, which he found consistent with Saternus’s treatment records and 

based on objective medical evidence that suggested his residual functional capacity 

for light work.

Case: 16-11386 Date Filed: 12/06/2016 Page: 3 of 8 
4

We review the ALJ’s decision in order to determine whether it is supported 

by substantial evidence and whether the ALJ applied proper legal standards. 

Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004). 

Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. We may 

not reweigh the evidence and decide the facts anew and must defer to the ALJ’s 

decision if it is supported by substantial evidence even though the evidence may 

preponderate against it. Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). 

The claimant must be under a disability to be eligible for disability insurance 

benefits. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(a)(1)(E), 1382c(a)(1), (2). In relevant part, a claimant 

is disabled if he is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of a 

medically determinable impairment that can be expected to result in death or which 

has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 

42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). To determine whether a claimant is 

disabled, the Social Security Administration applies a five-step sequential 

evaluation. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). This process analyzes 

whether the claimant: (1) is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity; (2) has 

a severe and medically determinable impairment; (3) has an impairment, or 

combination thereof, that meets or equals a Listing and meets the duration 

requirement; (4) can perform her past relevant work, in light of her residual 

Case: 16-11386 Date Filed: 12/06/2016 Page: 4 of 8 
5

functional capacity; and (5) can make an adjustment to other work, in light of her 

residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. Id. Thus, if the 

claimant is unable to do past relevant work, the examiner proceeds to the fifth and 

final step of the evaluation process to determine whether, in light of the claimant’s 

residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience, the claimant can 

perform other work. Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1227 (11th Cir. 2002). 

For a statement to be characterized as a “medical opinion,” it must be from a 

physician, psychologist, or other acceptable source and “reflect judgments about 

the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairments(s), including [the 

claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do 

despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). A doctor’s opinion on a dispositive issue reserved to the 

Commissioner, such as whether the claimant is disabled or unable to work, is 

excluded from the definition of a medical opinion and is not given special weight, 

but the ALJ should still consider the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). 

The ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical 

opinions, and the reasons therefor. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 

1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011); see also Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 

(11th Cir. 1997) (“The ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less 

weight to the opinion of a treating physician, and the failure to do so is reversible 

Case: 16-11386 Date Filed: 12/06/2016 Page: 5 of 8 
6

error.”). Testimony or an opinion of a treating physician must be given substantial 

or considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary. Lewis, 125 

F.3d at 1440. We have found “good cause” to exist where: (1) the opinion was not 

bolstered by the evidence, (2) the evidence supported a contrary finding, or (3) the 

opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records. Id.; 

see also Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 280 (11th Cir. 1987) (stating that an 

ALJ “may reject any medical opinion if the evidence supports a contrary finding”). 

The weight to be given a non-examining physician’s opinion depends, among other 

things, on the extent to which it is supported by clinical findings and is consistent 

with other evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). 

Here, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that there was 

good cause for giving little weight to Dr. Nadal’s opinion. See Lewis, 125 F.3d at 

1440. Indeed, the evidence the ALJ martialed reasonably supports both the 

conclusion that Dr. Nadal’s opinion was contrary to the evidence and that it was

inconsistent with her own records of treating Saternus. See id. The ALJ noted that 

the limitations that Dr. Nadal recommended were inconsistent with the record 

evidence from Saternus’s visits to Dr. Nadal, particularly in light of her 

recommendations that he exercise more and try riding a bike or using a treadmill, 

which were made while Dr. Nadal was aware of Saternus’s complaints of back 

pain. At the same meeting, Saternus told Dr. Nadal that his pain medication helped 

Case: 16-11386 Date Filed: 12/06/2016 Page: 6 of 8 
7

him to perform daily activities. In addition, the ALJ noted that the limitations 

recommended by Dr. Nadal were inconsistent with the CT and MRI scans of 

Saternus following his recent complaints of back pain, which showed slight 

inflammation and a small disc bulge but nothing else structurally wrong with his 

spine and lower back. The ALJ also concluded that Saternus’s description of his 

daily activities was evidence that Saternus was capable of performing at least light 

work. These findings conflict with Dr. Nadal’s opinion that Saternus could only 

walk half a block or that he would be off-task for over 25% of the time because of 

his pain. As such, there was substantial evidence showing good cause for the little 

weight the ALJ accorded to Dr. Nadal’s opinion.

Additionally, the ALJ had substantial evidence supporting the decision to 

give great weight to Dr. Molis’s opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e), which was 

plainly explained in his ruling. As a non-examining physician’s opinion, the 

support it drew from the mild clinical findings and Saternus’s description of his 

daily activities gave the ALJ ample basis for according it significant weight. See 

id. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in its significant reliance on Dr. Molis’s report.

Accordingly, the ALJ clearly explained the substantial evidence on which he 

relied for rejecting Dr. Nadal’s statement regarding the extent and limitations of 

Saternus’s impairments and for assigning significant weight to Dr. Molis’s opinion

Case: 16-11386 Date Filed: 12/06/2016 Page: 7 of 8 
8

under the relevant legal standards. See Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440; 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1527(e). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-11386 Date Filed: 12/06/2016 Page: 8 of 8