### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J une 29 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 04- 1458 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00089 -CV -4 MARY L. JOHNSON, P la int if f- Appe llant, ve rs us JO ANNE B. BARNHART, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 29, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BA RKE T T and KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Mary Joh nsonappe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ff irm an ce of

the S oc ia l S ec ur ity Com m issio ner’ s (“ Com

m issio ner’ s”) denial of benefits. For the r easons that fo ll ow, we v acat e an d re m an d. John son ap pli ed

f or dis ab ili ty

and s uppl em en ta l se curi ty inc om e be ne fi ts i n January 200 0, c la im ing that sh e ha d be endis ab le d si nc e O ct obe r 27, 199 9 du e to a ba ck inj ur y . A t a he ar ing be fo re an A dm ini str at ive L awJud ge ( “ A L J” ), Joh nson testified that the pain was a “ ten” on a scale of one to ten and th at it wa s m ore severe when she tried to sit or standand, there fore, she spent abou t twenty -three hours a day

sleeping. Johnso n testified that she inform ed her doctors that her m ed ic at ion s m ad e he r sle ep y , but she a dm itt ed

that sh e did

not te ll the m she sle pt al l day due to the pa in. S he state d th at he r ro om m at e as sis te d he r w ithbil ls and ac tiv iti es of

da ily li vin g. S he de nie d sp en din g ti m e w at ch ing te le vis ionor read in g. Insup port of

he r dis ab ili ty

appl ic at ion , Joh nsonr ep orte d he r pr ior occupations as including tagger, cashier, and security guard. Johnson explained t h a th e r c a s h i e r jo b r e qu i r e ds t a n d i n g f

o r ab o u tf o u r an dah a l f

h o u r s ad a y, wa lking about on e hour, sitting for about thi rty m inutes, and m inim al lifting. H er j ob as a security

guard required w alking for five hours, sitting for one hour, standin g for one hour, and m inim al lifting. Johnso n also ind icated that she wa sL ig ht e xer tio na l wo rk inv olv e s lif

tin g up to tw e nty po un ds , s tand ingor wa lki ngfo r at le a st 1 six hours, or sitting usingpush/pull m echa nisms. 20 C .F.R. § 404-1567( b). 3 ab le to pr ep ar e som e m ea ls, vis it w ithf ri en ds f or sho rt pe ri ods, r ide in a car, do s o me s h o p p i n g , an dr e a d . J o h n s o n n o t e d , h o w e v e r , th a ts h e n e e d e ds o me as sis tanc e w ithba thi ng and dre ssi ng d ue to pa in. T he S oc ia l S ec ur ity represe ntative evaluating the report m et w ith Joh nson fac e-to-fa ce and noted that John son us ed a cane, had diffic ulty sitting , standing, and wa lking , and appeared unc om fo rt ab le . T he voc at ion al ana ly sis , how ev er , ind ic at ed that the se curi ty guard pos iti on w as li ght

e xe rt ion al w ork, w hic h Jo hnso n w as c ap ab le of doi ng, 1 an d t he refo re, s he co ul d re tu rn to he r pa st workde sp it e h er i nju ry . A cc or din g to an M RI pe rf orm ed in N ove m

be r 1999 , Joh nsonsuf

fe re d f ro m degenerative disc disease and protrusion . At that tim e, neurosurgeon Jam es Lindley prescribed phy sical therapy and pain m edication. D r. Donald Fellner com pleted a m edical consultativ e case analy sis in February 2000 , f indin g that John son’s condition was “ non-severe.” Lindley saw John son in May

2000 , f indin g her in painful dis tress with very li m it edran ge of m ot io n i n h er b ackan d t en de rn es s i n h er l um ba r sp in e. He obse rv ed 5/5 str en gth , a lth oughthe pa in d ec re as ed Joh nson ’ s a

bil ity . D r. P au l4

L or en ze n, an ortho pe dic sur ge on, tr eate d Jo hnso n inJul y 200 0, not ing that sh e se em edve ry

un co m fo rtabl e as a res ul t o f th e d is c h ern ia ti on . InAugus t 20 00, Joh nsonr ec ei ve d w ee kly ste ro id i nj ec tio ns, but

did not obt ai n any

r el ie f fr om

the pa in. Joh nsonc la im ed she w as una

ble to sit f or lon g periods of tim e, experienced pain radiating from her back down her

legs, and had li m it at io ns in fle xi on . John son w as se enin the e m er ge nc y r oom in O ct obe r 2000 c om

pla ini ng o f ba ck pa in. T he e xa m ini ng p hy sic ian no te d th at he r pr es en ta tio n w as “ qui te dr am at ic , ” m ak ing a sse ssm en t di ff ic ult , that Jo hnso n e xpe ri en ce d so m e pa in w ith m ove m en t, and tha t sh e w as able to m ove f ro m one pos iti on t o anothe r an d transfer from

sitting to standin g without di fficulty , but that the discom fort w as m ost ly anti ci pa tor

y . Whe n L ind le y

e xa m ine d Jo hnso n inN ove m be r 2000 , he not ed that he r ba ck

pa in w as not

im pr ovi ng w ithm ed ic al tr eatm en t and h e reco m m en de d s ur ge ry . Co nsul tin g in te rn ist

and c ar dio va sc ular spe ci al ist D r. W ill iam

Ma loy evaluated John son’s m edical re cords in Novem ber 2000 to determ ine her re sidual func tio nin g c ap ac ity

( “ RF C” ), but

he did not e xa m ine he r. H e fo und that sh e co uld li ft tw en ty pounds oc ca sio na lly , li ft te n po unds f

re que ntl y , stand o r w al k f or si x h ou rs a da y , si t fo r si x h ou rs a da y , andha d u nl im it edpu sh /p ul l ab il it ie s.5

Ma loy f urthe r fo und that Jo hnso n ha d f re que nt l im itatio ns i n c lim bin g, ba lanc ing , kn e e l i n g , an dc r a w l i n g , an do c c a s i o n a l l i mi t s i n s t o o p i n g an dc r o u c h i n g . No t ab l y, Dr . Ma loy

indicated that he foundJohns on’s c om plaints to be “ credible. ” John son unde rw en t l um

bar fu sio n surg er

y in January

200 1. O ne m onth af te r sur ge ry , L ind le y

not ed that Jo hnso n no lon ge r expe ri en ce d r ad ia tin g pa in, but that she still had som e tenderness. Tw o m onth s post -surgery , L indley found that John son’s pain w as im

proving , a lthou gh she cont inued to experience som e leg pa in and l im ite d r an ge of m oti on i n he r ba ck . Whe n Jo hnso n w en t t o th e em er ge nc y

r oom c om pla ini ng o f ba ck

pa in i n Apr il 2001 , the X -r ay sho w ed no ab no rm al it ie s an d J oh ns on was g iv en Perc oc etan d Ib up ro fin . By May 200 1, L ind le y

not ed that Jo hnso n c ont inu ed

to expe ri en ce ba ck

and leg pain, although it wa s less intens e since the surgery , and he ind icated that John son co uld

pe rf orm li ght duty but c oul d no t r et

ur n to he r pr ior

oc cu pa tio ns. L ind le y a lso pr ep ar ed

an RFC e va luatio n in200 1, c onc lud ing that Jo hnso n c oul d sit f or one hour at

ati m e fo r a tot al of

f our hours pe r day , c oul d no t st an d or w al k fo r an y le ngth of ti m e, c oul d oc ca sio na lly li ft te n po unds , and c oul d no t op er at e fo ot p ed al s. L ind le y

f urthe r ind ic at ed

that Jo hnso n c oul d no t be nd, squ at , c raw l, clim b, or r each, and had restrictions in her environm ent. F inally , L indley6

co nc lud ed

that the re w as an ob

j ec tiv e m ed ic al c ondi tio n th at c oul d be e xpe ct ed

to pr oduc e John son’ s su

bj ec tiv e co m

pla int s. The A LJ upheld the Com m issio ner’ s denial of benefits, f indin g that Dr. Lindley ’ s RFC e valuation wa s incons istent with his own m edical notes, w as ove rl y “pe ssi m ist ic ” ab out

Joh nson ’ s c ap ab ili tie s, and tha t Jo hnso n w as c ap ab le of perform ing lig ht dut ies, a s her pain had decrea sed post -surgery . The A LJ c redited D r. Ma loy ’ s e va luatio n th at Joh nsonc oul d do he r pa st r el ev an t w ork a s ase curi ty guard , c as hie r, or

ta gge r. F ina lly , the A L J f ound that Jo hnso n ha d “ ze ro ” cr ed ibi lity

r eg ar din g he r pa in b ec au se the re w as no o bj ec tiv e m ed ic al e vid en ce to supp ort her sleeping for tw enty -three hours a day , and the AL J consid ered a s not ew orthy

the f ac t tha t Jo hnso n ha d ne ve r tol d he r phy sic ians a bout thi s si de effe ctfro m

he r m ed ic at io ns . A ft er the appe al s c ounc il de nie d r ev ie w , Joh nsonf ile d he r co m

pla int in the d i s t ri ct co u rt . Th e mag i s t ra t e ju d g e r ec o m m en d edaf

fi rmin g th e C o m

m i s s i o n er ’s d ec i s i o n , a n dth e d i s t ri ct co u rt ad o p t edth e r ec o m m en d at i o n o v erJ o h n s o n ’s obj ec tio ns. Joh nsonnowappe al s r ai sin g tw o is sue s: ( 1) w he the r the A L J pr ope rl y dis cr ed ite d he r subj ec tiv e co m pla int s of pa in, and ( 2) w he the r the A L J pr ope rl y w ei ghe d th e opi nio ns o f John son’ s ph y sic ians.7

W e re vie wthe Co m

m iss ion er ’ s de ci sio n to de te rm ine w he the r it is supp orted by

subst antial evidence and whether the correc t legal standards wer e ap pli ed . W ils on v . Barnhart , 284 F . 3d 1 219, 122 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ; L ew is v . Ca llahan, 125 F . 3d 1 436, 143 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . T his c ourt do es not r ew ei gh evidence or substit ute its judgm ent for that of the Com m issio ner, but ins tead re vie w s th e en tir e re co rd

to de te rm ine if

the de ci sio n r ea ch ed

is re as ona

ble and supp orte d by

sub stanti al e vid en ce . C or ne liu s v. S ull ivan, 936 F . 2d 1 143, 114 5 (1 1thCi r. 199 1) . S ubst an tia l e vid en ce is suc h r el ev an t e vid en ce a s ar ea sona ble m ind m igh t a cc ep t a s a de quate to supp ort a c onc lus ion . H al e v. Bo w en , 831 F . 2d 1007 , 101 1 ( 11th C ir . 198 7) ( statin g th at sub stanti al e vid en ce is “ ‘ m or e than a m er e sc int ill a, but

le ss than apr ep onde ranc e’ ”) . “ If the Co m m iss ion er ’ s de ci sio n is s uppo rt ed

by sub stanti al e vid en ce [ thi s c ourt] m ust a ff irm , e ve n if

the pr oof preponderates against it.” P hillip s v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 123 2, 1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004 ). A . Su

bj ec tiv e Co m

pla int s of P ai n In order to establish a disabilit y based on testim ony

of pain and other sym pto m s, the c la im an t m

ust sa tis fy tw o part s of

athr ee -p ar

t t es t sh ow ing : “ (1 ) evidence of an underly ing m edical condition ; and (2) either ( a) obj ective m edical ev ide nc e co nf

irm ing the se ve ri ty

of the a lle ge d pa in; or

( b) that the obj ec tiv el y8

de te rm ine d m ed ic al c ondi tio n c anr ea sona bly be e xpe ct ed

to giv e ri se to the cl ai m ed pa in. ” I f the A L J di sc re dit s su bj ec tiv e te sti m ony , the A L J m ust art ic ulate expli ci t and a de quate r ea sons f or doi ng s o; the f

ai lur e to d o so r es ult s inthe te sti m ony be ing a cc ep te d a s tr

ue a s am atte r of

law . W ils on v . Barnhart , 284 F . 3d at12 25 (ci ti ng Hol t v . Sul li va n, 9 21 F.2d12 21 , 12 23 (11 th Cir .19 91 )). In assessing Jo hnso n’ s credibility , the S ocial Secur ity Regulations require the A L J to c onsi de r (1 ) John son’ s da ily a ct ivi tie s; ( 2) the loc at ion , dur at ion , fr eque nc y , and i nte nsi ty

of the sy m pto m s; ( 3) f

ac tor s th at

a ggr av at e sym

pto m s; ( 4) the ty pe , dos ag e, and s ide e ff

ec ts o f an y

m ed ic at iontake n to r el ie ve the sy m pto m s; (5) any other treatm ent or m easures used to relieve sym ptom s; and (6) any

other fa ct or s. S SR

96- 7p. He re, the AL J concluded th at the m edical evidence did not su pport John son’s alleged sever ity of pain, and thi s decision is suppo rted by subst antial ev ide nc e. I n he r dis ab ili ty r ep orts, Joh nsonind ic at ed that sh e co uld

do d ai ly gr oom ing w itha ssi stanc e, c oul d do som e co oki ng and s hopp ing , c oul d r ide in the car and visit friends, watched television , and read. At the hearing, however , John son te sti fi ed

that sh e spe nt a

bout tw en ty -thr ee hours aday in be d a sle ep due to the pa in, that sh e co uld not c ook, w at chte le vis ion , or r ea d, and the pa in w as a

“ te n” on a

sc al e of one to te n. A lth oughpa in a lon e m ay sup port a f ind ing of9

disabili ty , F oote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir. 1995), the m edical ev ide nc e in this c as e did

not sup port Jo hnso n’ s su

bj ec tiv e co m

pla int s of pa in. T he p o s t - s u r g e ry n o t e s i n d i c a t e dth a tJ o h n s o n ’s p a i n h a dd e c r e a s e ds i n c e th e s u r g e ry, y et her testim ony

im plied that sh e experience d greater lim itations due to pain th an she did w he n sh e co m

ple te d he r dis ab ili ty

appl ic at ion . Mo re ove r, one e xa m ini ng phy sic ian f

ound Joh nsonto be “ dr am at ic ” in h er pr es en ta tio n. F urthe rm or e, if John son w as e xpe ri en ci ng dro w sin es s of the se ve ri ty

she a lle ge d, it

is m or e lik el y that she would have m entioned th is to her treating phy sician. W atson v. He ckler, 738 F. 2d 1 169, 117 3 ( 11th C ir . 198 4) . T he re fo re , the A L J’ s de te rm inatio n is supp orted by

subst antial evidence. B. O pin ion s of

the T re at ing and C onsu lti ng P hy sic ians T he opi nio n of

atr eatin g ph y sic ian “ m

ust be giv ensub stanti al or co nsi de ra ble w ei ght

unl es s ‘ good

c au se ’ is shown to the c ontrary . ” G ood ca use ex ist s w he n th e: “ (1 ) tr eatin g ph y sic ian’ s op ini on w as not bol ste re d by

the ev i d en ce ; (2 ) e v i d en ce s up p o rt eda c o n t ra ry fi n d i n g ; o r ( 3 ) t re at i n g p h ysi ci an ’s op in io n was co nc lu so ry

or i nc on si st en t wi th th e d oc to r’s own m ed ic al reco rd s.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 123 2, 1240-41 (11t h Cir. 2004 ) (c itations om itted); se e al so E dw ar ds v . S ull ivan, 937 F . 2d 5 80, 583 ( 11th C ir . 199 1) ; M ac G re gor v. Bo w en , 786 F . 2d 1 050, 105 3 ( 11th C ir . 198 6) . T he opi nio n of anon -e xa m ini ng10

phy sician does no t establish th e good cause necessary to rej ect the opinion of a tre at in g p hysic ia n. Lam

b v . Bowe n, 8 47 F.2d69 8, 7 03 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). H er e, the A L J de te rm ine d th at Joh nsonw as able to pe rf orm he r pa st re l ev an two rkb as edo n Ma l o y’ s RF C e v al u at i o n . In re je ct i n g Li n d l ey’s as se ssm en t, the A L J e xpl ai ne d th at he f ound L ind le y ’ s RFC f

ind ing s in co nsi ste nt wit h t he m ed ic al reco rd , as e xp res se d b y Lore nz en , andLin dl ey ’s own no te s. A lth oughthe A L J m ay

have pr ope rl y

r ej ec te d L ind le y ’ s RFC e va luatio n f or goo d ca use , a s it w as inc onsi ste nt w ithhis ow n pr ogr es s no te s, the A L J ne ve rthe le ss, er re d ingiv ing gr eate r w ei ght to the opi nio n of

Ma loy , anon -e xa m ini ng p hy sic ian. The r ecords ref

lect that, following surgery , Johnson wa s doin g well, had less severe pain, and was im proving . Lindley

noted that Jo hnso n could p erfor m

“ light duty ,” althoug h he did no t explain thi s term . Fellner f oundJohns on’s pre s u r g e ry c o n d i t i o n “n o n - s e v e r e . ” A d d i t i o n a l l y, o n o n e tr i p t o th e e me r g e n c y r o o m, the exam ining phy sician noted th at Johns on was “ quite dram atic” and that her reac ti on to di sc om fo rt a ndpa in was m os tl y an ti ci pa to ry . In m aking di sabilitydeterm ination s, the Com m issio ner considers whether the e vid en ce is co nsi ste nt and s uf fi ci en t t o m ak e a de te rm inatio n. I f it is n ot consist ent, the Com

m issio ner w eighs the evid ence to re ach her dec ision . If, after w ei ghi ng the e vid en ce , the Co m m iss ion er c an not r ea chade te rm inatio n, the n sh e11

will seek additional inform ation or recontact the phy sicians. 20 C. F. R. § 4 04 .15 27 (c). In ad di ti on , un de r th e So ci al Secu rit y Reg ul at io ns , [w ] hen the evidence . . . from y our treating phy sician . . . or other m edical source is inadequate for us to determ ine whether y ou are dis ab le d, w e . . . w ill f

ir st r ec ont ac t y our

tr eatin g ph y sic ian . . . or other m edical source to determ ine whether the additio nal inform ation . . . is readily available. W e w ill seek additio nal evidence or c lari fi catio n f

ro m y our m ed ic al sourc e w he n th e re port f ro m y our m ed ic al sourc e co nta ins ac onf lic t or a m big uity that m ust be r es olv ed , the r ep ort do es not

c ont ai n a ll the ne ce ssary inf orm at ion , or

doe s no t appear to be based on m edically acce ptable clinical and laboratory di ag no st ic tec hn iq ue s. 20 C.F.R. § 40 4- 15 12 (e). G ive n th e re co rd

be fo re us, w e fi nd tha t the Co m m iss ion er w as not able to m ake a disability

determ ination based on the evidence presented, and, therefor e, ad dit ion al e vid en ce w as ne ce ssary . B ec au se the e vid en ce e sta bli she d, and John son doe s no t c ont es t, that sh e did not have an im

pa irm en t tha t m et

or exceeded a Listing, Johnso n was r equired to sho w that she is unable to perform he r pa st r el ev an t w ork to e sta bli sh h er dis ab ili ty . S ee 20 C . F. R. § 40 4. 1520 . T he RFC i s an ass es sm en t o f th e cl ai m an t’s ab il it y to do workde sp it e h er i m pa irments . 20 C.F. R. § 404 -1545(a); Le wis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 143 6, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997 ). T he A L J m ak es thi s de te rm inatio n by c onsi de ri ng the c la im an t’ s a bil ity to lift we ight, sit, stand, push, and pull, am ong o ther tasks. 20 C. F. R. § 404 -1545(b).12

Co nsi de ri ng the m ed ic al r ec or ds a s a w hol e, it is not c le ar w ha t l ev el of w ork, if any , Joh nson

w oul d be able to pe rf

orm . Ma loy ’ s RFC e va luatio n is not dis posi tiv e, a s it s c onc lus ion s are f ro m anon -tre at ing , non -e xa m ini ng p hy sic ian, and the other m edical re cords express no ind ication of John son’s ability to perform he r pa st w ork. S ee S harf az v. Bo w en , 825 F . 2d 2 78, 279 -8 1 ( 11th C ir . 198 7) (holdin g that non -treating p hy sician’ s opin ions are entitled to litt le w eight when contradictory

to treating phy sician’ s opin ions, and will not const itute sub stantial ev ide nc e standi ng a lon e) ; S pe nc er on b eh al f of

S pe nc er v. H ec kle r, 765 F . 2d 1090 , 109 4 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) ( fi ndi ng tha t op ini on o f non- ex am ini ng p hy sic ian, take n a lon e, c oul d no t c onst itu te sub stanti al e vid en ce ). Joh nson ’ s pa st w ork a s a ca shi er r equir ed standi ng f

or about f our and a ha lf hours aday , w al kin g a

bout one hour , sit ing f

or about thi rty m inu te s, and m ini m al li ft ing . H er j ob a s ase curi ty guard required wa lking for f ive hours, sitting for one hour, standing for one hour, an d m ini m al li ft ing . A lth oughthe voc at ion al ana ly sis ind ic at ed that the se curi ty guard pos iti on w as li ght

e xe rt ion al w ork, w hic h Jo hnso n w as c ap ab le of doi ng, the m ed ic al r ec or ds are inc onsi ste nt w iththi s ana ly sis , a s th e re co rd s sh owthat sh e co nt in ue d t o e xp eri en ce p ai n i n h er b ackan d l eg s an d s he walk edwit h acan e. E ve n if he r le ve l of

pa in w as not

c re dib le , a s di sc uss ed

above , the m ed ic al r ec or ds do no t s up po rt a fin di ng th atsh e was ab le to return t o h er p as t wo rk .13

Be ca use the Co m

m iss ion er w as not able to de te rm ine dis ab ili ty ba se d up on the r ec or d be fo re he r, the Co m m iss ion er or the A L J sh oul d have a tte m pte d to re sol ve the inc onsi ste nc ie s to de te rm ine w he the r John son w as dis ab le d. Whe n th e re co rd s are inc onc lus ive on whe the r the c la im an t c anr et ur n to he r pa st r el ev an t work, t he reco rdm

us t b e d ev el op edfur th er t hr ou gh vo cat io na l ex pe rt t es ti m on y . H oll ad ay v. Bo w en , 848 F . 2d 1 206, 121 0 ( 11th C ir . 198 8) . A s th e A L J di d no t el ic it an y te sti m ony

f ro m avoc at ion al e xpe rt

in thi s c as e, w e V A CA T E and RE MA N D f or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs.