[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13028

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

KATHY ELAINE PONS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 5:20-cv-00016-MAF

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-13028 Date Filed: 04/25/2022 Page: 1 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13028

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kathy Pons appeals the district court’s order affirming the 

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability insurance 

benefits. She argues that the administrative law judge erred in failing to weigh the medical opinion of Dr. Linda Kay Fox or provide 

good cause for rejecting that opinion. The Commissioner concedes 

that the administrative law judge did not discuss Dr. Fox’s opinion

but argues that the opinion was practically irrelevant because it did 

not address the time period when Pons was eligible for disability 

insurance benefits. After review, we hold that even if the administrative law judge erred by failing to consider Dr. Fox’s opinion, any 

such error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND 

Pons applied for disability insurance benefits in 2013. She alleged disability due to headaches and neck, shoulder, and lower 

back pain, and reported that repetitive motion exacerbated her 

pain. She alleged a disability onset date of June 24, 2011, and her

last insured date was December 31, 2011. She therefore had the 

burden of showing that she was disabled during the roughly sixmonth period between her alleged onset date and last insured date. 

After a hearing, an administrative law judge issued a decision denying benefits and concluding that, during the six-month period at 

issue, Pons was capable of performing work at the light exertional 

USCA11 Case: 21-13028 Date Filed: 04/25/2022 Page: 2 of 8
21-13028 Opinion of the Court 3

level and that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national 

economy that she could perform. Pons filed an administrative appeal with the Social Security Appeals Council, which denied review. She then filed suit in federal district court. In September 2018, 

the district court reversed and remanded for a redetermination of 

Pons’s residual functional capacity. 

On remand, a second hearing was held at which Pons and a 

vocational expert testified. This time, Pons submitted certain treatment records by Dr. Linda Kay Fox. Dr. Fox began treating Pons 

in February 2015. Dr. Fox’s records included a “Fibromyalgia Medical Opinion” questionnaire from June 2019—the month before the 

hearing—which appears to have been prepared upon review of records received from Pons’s previous treating physician, Dr. Hulon 

Crayton. Pons submitted two versions of the form, both dated June 

25, 2019. The second version contained additional notes on Pons’s

limitations related to “reaching, handling or fingering.” The second, more detailed form stated Dr. Fox’s opinion that Pons required continuous breaks, needed to elevate her legs half of the 

day, would be off task more than a quarter of the day, would miss 

more than four days of work a month, and was incapable of even 

low stress work, among other limitations. The form prompted Dr. 

Fox to state her “Frequency and length of contact” with Pons, to

which Dr. Fox replied “2013 2011 per Dr. Crayton.” Dr. Fox’s office 

was unable to provide additional records from before 2018, asserting that their paper records were destroyed during Hurricane Michael.

USCA11 Case: 21-13028 Date Filed: 04/25/2022 Page: 3 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13028

In September 2019, the administrative law judge issued a 

second unfavorable decision, concluding that Pons was not disabled during the six-month period between her alleged onset date 

and her last insured date. Importantly, the decision did not weigh 

the opinion statements of Dr. Fox regarding Pons’s work-related 

limitations, nor did it state good cause for rejecting them. After the 

Appeals Council denied review, Pons filed suit in district court, 

challenging the decision on several grounds including its failure to 

address Dr. Fox’s medical opinion. The district court affirmed the 

decision in all respects. Relevant here, the district court concluded 

that the administrative law judge’s failure to consider and credit the 

opinion of Dr. Fox was, at most, harmless error. Pons filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the district court denied. Pons then appealed. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

When the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration declines to review an administrative law judge’s decision 

denying disability benefits, as occurred here, we review that administrative law judge’s decision as the final decision of the Administration’s Commissioner. Simon v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 7 F.4th 

1094, 1103 (11th Cir. 2021). We review the administrative law 

judge’s legal conclusions de novo and his factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla 

and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept 

as adequate to support a conclusion.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13028 Date Filed: 04/25/2022 Page: 4 of 8
21-13028 Opinion of the Court 5

Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir.2004) (quoting Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir.1997)). 

III. DISCUSSION 

The district court held that, even if the administrative law 

judge erred by failing to expressly consider Dr. Fox’s opinion, that 

failure was harmless. [Doc. 45 at 41–43] Pons argues that the administrative law judge erred in failing to either weigh Dr. Fox’s 

opinion or state good cause for rejecting it. She asserts that, though 

Dr. Fox did not begin treating her until 2015, her medical opinion 

was relevant because Dr. Fox stated that she relied on treatment 

records from her previous treating physician which dated back to 

the relevant six-month period in 2011. And Pons contends that the 

error was not harmless because Dr. Fox identified limitations that, 

according to the vocational expert, would have prevented Pons 

from finding work in the national economy. The Commissioner 

responds that, even if failing to discuss Dr. Fox’s opinion was error, 

the error was harmless because Dr. Fox’s opinion was formed years 

after the six-month period at issue and was inconsistent with other 

evidence in the record. For the reasons given below, we affirm the 

district court.

The administrative law judge must state with particularity 

the weight given to different medical opinions and the supporting 

reasons. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179

(11th Cir. 2011). We have held that an administrative law judge

must give a treating physician’s conclusions “substantial or 

USCA11 Case: 21-13028 Date Filed: 04/25/2022 Page: 5 of 8
6 Opinion of the Court 21-13028

considerable weight” unless there is “good cause” to discount 

them. Simon, 7 F.4th at 1104 (quoting Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440). 

“Good cause” exists where “(1) [the] treating physician’s opinion 

was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) [the] evidence supported a 

contrary finding; or (3) [the] treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 2004). The 

failure to do so is reversible error. Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440. 

The Social Security regulations define a “treating source” as 

a medical source, including a physician, who has provided the 

claimant with medical treatment and has, or previously had, an ongoing treatment relationship with the claimant. 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404.1502, 404.1527. The regulations do not clearly distinguish 

between physicians who treated the claimant during the relevant 

period and those who treated her after that period ended. See 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1527.

We have applied the harmless error rule to social security 

appeals. See Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726, 728 (11th Cir. 1983). 

If an error is harmless, we will not remand for further findings 

where doing so would be a “wasteful corrective exercise.” See 

Ware v. Schweiker, 651 F.2d 408, 412 (5th Cir. Unit A July 1981).

As an initial matter, we note that the critical date for establishing entitlement to benefits is the last insured date. See Moore v. 

Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (“For [disability insurance benefit] claims, a claimant is eligible for benefits where she 

demonstrates disability on or before the last date for which she 

USCA11 Case: 21-13028 Date Filed: 04/25/2022 Page: 6 of 8
21-13028 Opinion of the Court 7

were insured.”) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(a)); 20 C.F.R. § 404.131. 

To be entitled to benefits, a claimant must make a showing of disability “on or before that date.” Id. Pons was last insured on December 31, 2011. She is therefore entitled to benefits only if she can 

demonstrate that she was disabled during the six-month period between June 24, 2011 (the alleged onset date) and December 31, 2011

(the last insured date). 

The Commissioner argues that Dr. Fox is not a treating physician at all because she did not treat Pons during the six-month

period at issue. Dr. Fox did not begin treating Pons until 2015, and 

she did not fill out the “Fibromyalgia Medical Opinion” questionnaire until 2019. She based her opinion in part on reviewing records 

created by another physician, Dr. Crayton, that were already part 

of the record. Insofar as her opinion was based on what was reflected in Dr. Crayton’s records from an earlier time, Dr. Fox’s 

opinion of Pons’s limitations between June and December 2011 

was more like that of a reviewing or consulting physician. 

Nevertheless, even assuming arguendo that Dr. Fox’s opinion is subject to the treating physician rule and that the administrative law judge erred in failing to address it, any such error was 

harmless. The error was harmless because the administrative law 

judge’s good cause for rejecting Dr. Fox’s opinion is plainly evident 

on the face of the record, rendering remand futile.

First, Dr. Fox’s opinion is based on a review of records and 

her inactions with Pons after Pons’s last insured date. To the extent 

her opinion “relates back” to the relevant period in 2011, that is 

USCA11 Case: 21-13028 Date Filed: 04/25/2022 Page: 7 of 8
8 Opinion of the Court 21-13028

because the opinion is based on a review of Dr. Crayton’s records, 

which were part of the administrative record that the administrative law judge addressed. Dr. Crayton’s records supported the administrative law judge’s finding that Pons’s alleged pain stemming

from fibromyalgia was not as severe as she alleged, and Dr. Fox’s

opinion added no new information about Pons’s limitations during 

the relevant six-month period in 2011. 

Second, to the extent Dr. Fox’s opinion addressed the relevant time period, Dr. Fox’s opinion was inconsistent with her own 

medical records. Dr. Fox’s “Fibromyalgia Medical Opinion” questionnaire said that Pons suffered from, among other things, chronic 

fatigue and migraines. But, Dr. Fox’s treatment notes indicate that, 

before June 2019, Pons had consistently denied experiencing fatigue and headaches. Dr. Fox said that Pons could not sustain even 

“an easy job” for eight hours a day and five days a week, and that 

she was incapable of tolerating even “low stress work.” But in her 

earlier records, Dr. Fox had repeatedly reported that Pons’s condition was “stable with good response clinically to current medical 

regimen.”

Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that the administrative law judge erred in failing to expressly address Dr. Fox’s opinion, we conclude that any error was harmless. Dr. Fox’s opinion

was formed long after the relevant six-month period in 2011 had 

ended. And it was inconsistent with Pons’s own statements and her 

own medical records. Therefore, we affirm the denial of benefits.

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-13028 Date Filed: 04/25/2022 Page: 8 of 8