[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-11495

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:17-cv-01841-DCI

JAMES DEWEY BAILEY, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(January 31, 2020)

Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 19-11495 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 Page: 1 of 10 
2

PER CURIAM: 

James Bailey appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social Security 

Commissioner’s denial of Bailey’s application for disability insurance benefits 

(“DIB”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Reversible error has been shown; we affirm in part 

and reverse in part the district court’s order; we remand with instructions to vacate 

the Commissioner’s decision and to remand to the Commissioner for further 

proceedings.

Our review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited to whether substantial 

evidence supports the decision and whether the correct legal standards were 

applied. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). 

“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. “If the 

Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, this Court must 

affirm, even if the proof preponderates against it.” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 

1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). Under this limited standard of review, we may not 

make fact-findings, re-weigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of 

the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 

(11th Cir. 2005). We review de novo the district court’s determination about 

Case: 19-11495 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 Page: 2 of 10 
3

whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 

F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002).

A person who applies for Social Security DIB must first prove that he is 

disabled.*

 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a). The Social Security Regulations outline a 

five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is 

disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The ALJ must evaluate (1) whether the 

claimant engaged in substantial gainful work; (2) whether the claimant has a severe 

impairment; (3) whether the severe impairment meets or equals an impairment in 

the Listings of Impairments; (4) whether the claimant has the residual functional 

capacity (“RFC”) to perform his past relevant work; and (5) whether, in the light of 

the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, there exist other jobs in 

the national economy the claimant can perform. Id. 

Appling the five-step evaluation process, the ALJ first determined that 

Bailey had engaged in no substantial gainful activity since his application date. 

The ALJ then determined that Bailey had the following severe impairments: 

disorders of the spine, cervical radiculitis, mild carpal tunnel syndrome, left cubital 

tunnel syndrome, hypertension, psoriasis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”), 

* Disability is the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any 

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

or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 

months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). 

Case: 19-11495 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 Page: 3 of 10 
4

chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuritis, polyneuropathy, history of 

diverticulitis, history of muscle weakness, and history of benign prostatic 

hyperplasia.

The ALJ next determined that Bailey had the RFC to perform light work 

with limitations. Among other limitations, the ALJ determined that Bailey could

sit, stand or walk for up to 6 hours each within an 8-hour workday, and could lift

and carry up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. In the light of 

Bailey’s RFC, the ALJ concluded that Bailey was capable of performing his past 

relevant work as a dispatcher and, thus, was not disabled. The district court 

affirmed.

On appeal, Bailey argues that the ALJ failed to apply the correct legal 

standard to the medical opinions of treating physicians Dr. Yee and Dr. Garewal. 

Bailey says the ALJ erred in giving only “partial weight” to Dr. Yee’s opinion. 

Bailey also contends that the ALJ failed to consider adequately and to specify the 

weight given to the medical opinion of Dr. Garewal. 

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all medical 

opinions in the claimant’s case record together with other pertinent evidence. 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). In deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion, the 

ALJ considers, among other things, (1) the examining relationship; (2) the 

Case: 19-11495 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 Page: 4 of 10 
5

treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which the opinion is supported by medical 

evidence and explanations; and (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the 

record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Absent “good cause” to the contrary, 

the ALJ must give substantial weight to the opinion, diagnosis, and medical 

evidence of a treating physician. Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 

1155, 1159 (11th Cir. 2004). Good cause may exist under these circumstances: (1) 

the treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by evidence; (2) evidence 

supported a contrary finding; or (3) the treating physician’s opinion was 

conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records. Lewis v. 

Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). 

“[T]he ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different 

medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. We will 

not affirm a decision “when the ALJ fails to state with at least some measure of 

clarity the grounds for his decision.” Id. (quotations omitted). 

Dr. Yee

Dr. Yee is Bailey’s primary care physician. On 10 March 2014, Bailey 

presented to Dr. Yee with weakness, tingling in his arms, and fatigue. Dr. Yee sent

Case: 19-11495 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 Page: 5 of 10 
6

Bailey to the hospital emergency room, where Bailey was later diagnosed with 

GBS. On 4 April 2014, Bailey saw Dr. Yee for a follow-up appointment. Dr. Yee 

reported that Bailey was fatigued and weak, with a motor strength of 3/5 in the

upper and lower extremities, a weak gait, and an “unremarkable” non-focal 

neurological exam. Dr. Yee prescribed medication for GBS and referred Bailey to 

a neurologist for further evaluation. Bailey visited Dr. Yee again on 7 November 

2014, complaining of weakness and muscle spasms. Dr. Yee’s physical exam 

revealed largely the same physical conditions as on 4 April. Dr. Yee prescribed 

additional medications for GBS and recommended “light home exercise” of at least 

30 minutes of cardiovascular exercise 3 times per week. 

On 12 December 2014, Dr. Yee completed a pre-printed form titled 

“Medical Assessment of Ability to do Work-Related Activities (Physical).” On the 

form, Dr. Yee opined that Bailey could sit for 1-2 hours at a time for a total of 6-7 

hours a day; could stand for 20 minutes at a time for a total of 4 hours a day; and 

could walk for 5-10 minutes at a time for a total of 2-3 hours a day. Dr. Yee also 

opined that Bailey could lift or carry less than five pounds, needed both hands to 

carry things, and had poor hand dexterity and grip. Dr. Yee said that Bailey’s 

prognosis was “fair/chronic” given his GBS and neuropathy. 

Case: 19-11495 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 Page: 6 of 10 
7

The ALJ assigned only “partial weight” to Dr. Yee’s opinion from the 

Medical Assessment form, to the extent Dr. Yee’s opinion was consistent with the 

ALJ’s RFC assessment. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. The 

ALJ explained that Dr. Yee’s opinion about Bailey’s physical limitations was 

inconsistent with the objective medical evidence in the record, which the ALJ 

found showed an overall improvement in Bailey’s neurological symptoms and 

medical condition over the course of his treatment by all providers. Dr. Yee’s 

assessment was also inconsistent with Dr. Yee’s own treatment records, which 

prescribed a “generally conservative/conventional treatment” plan, including 

medication management and an at-home exercise routine. Dr. Yee’s opinion was 

also contradicted by Bailey’s own testimony that he was able to work part-time as 

a delivery driver, had no problems sitting, could lift and carry up to ten pounds, 

and could perform (with some difficulty) several activities of daily living, 

including cooking, grocery shopping, driving, and mowing the lawn with a riding 

mower. 

Case: 19-11495 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 Page: 7 of 10 
8

Dr. Garewal

Dr. Garewal (a treating neurologist) first saw Bailey on 15 April 2014. Dr. 

Garewal reported that Bailey had normal motor strength, reduced sensation in a 

stocking-glove distribution, slow fine finger movements, and a good stride. Dr. 

Garewal assessed Bailey with idiopathic progressive polyneuropathy, disturbance 

of skin sensation, and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuritis. After 

conducting EMG/NCV testing, Dr. Garewal noted abnormal study findings with 

proximal polyradiculopathy as seen in GBS, mild carpal tunnel syndrome, and left 

cubital tunnel syndrome. Dr. Garewal prescribed medications, diagnostic imaging, 

and a social work consult. 

At a follow-up appointment on 15 May 2014, Bailey presented with largely 

the same physical conditions as on 15 April, except Dr. Garewal reported that 

Bailey had “mild weakness in distal hands with grip/pad/dabpsoaritic changes in 

hands.” Dr. Garewal continued Bailey’s medications. 

Also on 15 May, Dr. Garewal signed a handwritten “To Whom It May 

Concern” note that said, “I am treating [Bailey] for progressive neuropathy which 

is resulting in weakness, pain, and sensory deficits. I don’t presently think he can 

work.”

Case: 19-11495 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 Page: 8 of 10 
9

On appeal, Bailey contends that the ALJ committed reversible error by 

failing to mention or to assign weight to Dr. Garewal’s 15 May handwritten note. 

We agree. Although an ALJ may decide to disregard the opinion of a treating 

physician upon a finding of “good cause,” the ALJ must articulate clearly his 

reasons for doing so. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. Here, where the ALJ made no 

mention of Dr. Garewal’s opinion that Bailey was unable to work and failed to 

specify the weight given to that opinion, we cannot “determine whether the 

ultimate decision on the merits of the claim is rational and supported by substantial 

evidence.” See id. 

We acknowledge the Commissioner’s contention that the first sentence of 

Dr. Garewal’s 15 May note was duplicative of information already considered 

expressly by the ALJ. We also recognize that the final determination about 

whether a claimant is “unable to work” is one that is reserved to the 

Commissioner: a physician’s opinion that a person is “unable to work” is thus not 

determinative and is entitled to no “special significance.” See 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1527(d). We stress, however, that the ALJ must consider all the claimed 

expert, medical opinions in the record and must specify the weight -- including no 

weight, if applicable -- given to each purported medical opinion and the reasons 

therefor. See id. at §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1527(c); Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179; see 

Case: 19-11495 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 Page: 9 of 10 
10

also Graham v. Apfel, 129 F.3d 1420, 1422 (11th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he ALJ has a 

basic obligation to develop a full and fair record.”). We have said that failure to 

articulate clearly the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating 

physician constitutes reversible error. MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 

(11th Cir. 1986). 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, 

and this case is remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the 

Commissioner’s decision and to remand to the Commissioner for further 

proceedings.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

Case: 19-11495 Date Filed: 01/31/2020 Page: 10 of 10