FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 23, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 45 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -2 22 63 -MGC

RICAR DO M. SIVERIO, lll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us COMM ISSI ONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen dant -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 23 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ri card o S iv eri o app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s o rd er af firm in g t he de ni al un de r42 U.S.C. § 4 05 (g ) of hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r di sabi li ty ins ur an ce b en efi ts by Soci al Secu rit y Co m m is si on er Mi ch ael Astru e. On ap pe al , Siv eri o a rg ue s tha t the Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e (“ ALJ”) erredby find in g t ha t h e ret ai ne d t he res idua l func ti on al cap aci ty (“ RFC” ) to pe rfo rm m ed iu m work . He als o a rg ue s tha t the ALJ err edby dis co un ti ng th e o pi ni on of h is tre at in g p hysic ian, Dr. Em il io Su arez . 1 Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d a ndco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we rev ers e in pa rt a ndaffi rm

inpa rt. I. W e rev ie w th e Co m

m is si on er’s fac tu al fin di ng s t o d et erm in e whe th er the y are s up po rte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. In gr am v. Co m m ’r of So c. Sec. Adm in ., 49 6 F .3d12 53 , 12 60 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Sub st an ti al ev id en ce i s d efi ne d a s “ su ch rel ev an t ev id en ce as a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ldacce ptas a de qu at e to supp ort a co nc lu si on .” Blo od swo rth v. Heck le r, 70 3 F .2d12 33 , 12 39 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). It i s

“ m or e th ana sc in ti ll a, bu t l es s tha n apre po nd eran ce.” Id . Inco nduc ti ng th is rev ie w, we m ay

no t d eci de fact s an ew, rewei gh th e ev id en ce, o r subs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t fo r th atof the ALJ. Dy er v . Barn ha rt, 3 95 F.3d12 06 , 12 10 (11 th Cir . Additionally , Siverio argues that the ALJ err ed by rely ing on the medical- vocational 1 guidelines, rathe r than usinga vocational expert to determine whe ther he could per form wor k that exis ts in the national economy . In reve rsingand re manding , we a ssume the AL J will rely on the guidelines only

if substantial evidenc e supports a f inding that none x ertional impairments do not preve nt Siverio from perf orminga wide r ang e of w ork at Siverio’s wor k capa city

level. See Phill ips v. Bar

nhart, 357 F .3d 1232, 1243 (11th Cir. 2004). 220 05 ). At th e sa m e ti m e, we wil l re ve rs e whe re the ALJ fai ls eithe r to ap pl y th e co rrec t l aw orto “pr ov id e [u s] with s uf fic ie ntreas on in g fo r de te rm in in g t ha t the pr op er l eg al an al y si s h as be enco nduc te d.” Keeto n v . Dep’t o f Heal th& Hum an Serv s., 2 1 F .3d10 64 , 10 66 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). II. A cla im an t s eek in g d is ab il it y in suran ce b en efi ts m

us t d em on st rat e th athe was di sabl edon or b efo re the las t d at e o n wh ic h h e was las t i ns ur ed . Moo re v . Barn ha rt, 4 05 F.3d12 08 , 12 11 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). In t hi s ca se , Siv eri o n eed edto de m on st rat e d is ab il it y

on or b efo re Dece m

be r 31 , 20 08 . The so ci al sec ur it y

reg ul at io ns est ab li sh a fi ve -s te p, s eque nt ia l ev al ua ti on pr oc es s t o d et erm in e d is ab il ity fordi sabi li ty ben efi ts cla im s. See 20 C.F.R. § 4 04 .15 20 . The ALJm

us t ev al ua te : (1 ) whe th er the cla im an t en ga ge d i n subs ta nt ia l g ai nf

ul em pl oym en t; (2) whet he r th e cl ai m an t h as a se ve re i m pa irment; (3 ) whe th er the sev ere i m pa irment m eet s o r equa ls anim pa irment i n t he Lis ti ng of Im pa irments ; o r (4 ) whe th er the cla im an t h as th e RFC to pe rfo rm hi s p as t re le va nt work; an d (5 ) whe th er, i n l ig htof t he cla im an t’s RF C, ag e, educ at io n a ndwork ex pe rie nc e, th ere are o th er job s the cla im an t ca n p erfo rm . See P hi ll ip s v . Barn ha rt, 3 57 F.3d12 32 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ); 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .15 20 (a)( 4) (i) –( v) . Thro ug ho utth e p ro ces s, the burd enis onth e cl ai m an t t o 3in tro du ce ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r be ne fit s. Ell is onv. Ba rn ha rt,

35 5 F .3d12 72 , 12 76 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Here, the ALJ fo un d t ha t Si ve rio was n oten ga ge d i n s ub st an ti al ga in fu l act iv ity , hadsev ere i m

pa irments th atdi d n otm eetor e qu al a li st edim pa irment, an d c ou ldno t p erfo rm

pa strel ev an t wo rk . Whe n t ha t h ap pe ns , th e ALJ m us t the n de te rm in e, atst ep fiv e, whe th er the cla im an t’s RF C al lo ws h im to pe rfo rm

work th atex is ts inth e n at io na l ec on omy . 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 52 0( a)(4 )(v ), (g ). RFC i s an ass es sm en t o f a cl ai m an t’s re m ai ni ng ab il ity to do workde sp it e hi s i m pa irments . Lewis v. Ca ll ah an , 12 5 F .3d14 36 , 14 40 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). The ALJ m ak es anRFC fi nd in g b as edon all th e “ rel ev an t m ed ic al an d o th er ev id en ce.” 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 54 5( a)(3 ). The ALJm us t co ns id er an y

st at em en ts by m ed ic al so ur ces ab ou t wh atth e cl ai m an t ca n s ti ll do an d wh ethe r th os e st at em en ts 2 are b as edon form al m ed ic al ex am in at io ns . The ALJ m us t al so co ns id er de sc rip ti on s an d o bs erv at io ns of t he li m it at io ns res ul ti ng fro m th e cl ai m an t’s im pa irments , in cl ud in g l im it at io ns th atres ul t fr om sym pt om s, s uc h a s p ai n. Id . Onl y “ acce pt ab le m ed ic al so ur ces ” can pro vi de m ed ic al op in io ns , whi chare The ter m “medica l sources” ref

ers to both “a cceptable medica l sources” and other health 2 car e provide rs who ar e not “a cceptable medica l sources.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502. “Ac cepta ble medica l source” includes treating sourc es, nontreating sourc es, and none x amining source s. I d. The re gulations identify “ac cepta ble medica l sources” as license d phy sicians, licensed or

cer tified psycholog ists, li cense d optometrists, li cense d podiatrists, and qualified speec h-languag e patholog ists. S ee id. § 404.1513(a). 4“ st at em en ts fro m ph y si ci an s an d p sycho lo gi st s o r ot he r acc ep tabl e m ed ic al so ur ces th atrefl ectjud gm en ts ab ou t the na tu re an d s ev eri ty of” a cl ai m an t’s i m pa irment, in cl ud in g s ym

pt om s, d ia gn os is an d p ro gn os is , whatth e cl ai m an t can s ti ll do de sp it e th e im

pa irment, andth e cl ai m an t’s p hysic al or m en ta l re stric ti on s. Id . § 4 04 .15 27 (a)( 2) . To d es cri be whatki ndof wo rka cl ai m an t i s ab le to un de rta ke , th e RFC as se ss m en t ty

pi cal ly ado pt s o ne of t he fol lo win g wo rkcla ss ifi cat io ns : s ed en ta ry , li gh t, m ed iu m , hea vy, andve ry he av y . Id. § 40 4.1 56 7. Me di um workis de fin ed as “ li fti ng no m or e th an50 po un ds at ati m e wit h fr eque ntli fti ng or c arrying of ob jects weig hi ng up to 25 po un ds .” Id . § 4 04 .15 67 (c). Lig htworkin vo lv es

“ li fti ng no m or e th an20 po un ds at ati m e wit h fr eque ntli fti ng or c arrying of ob jects weig hi ng up to 10 po un ds .” Id . § 4 04 .15 67 (b ). Sed en ta ry workis de fin ed as “ li fti ng no m or e th an10 po un ds at ati m e an d o ccas io na ll y li fti ng or c arrying art ic le s l ik e d oc ke t fi le s, l ed ge rs , andsm al l t oo ls . Alth ou gha se de nt ary job is de fin edas o ne whi chin vo lv es si tt in g, a c ert ai n a m ou ntof wa lk in g a ndst an di ng is of te n n eces sa ry

incarry in g o utjob du ti es .” Id . § 4 04 .15 67 (a). So ci al Secu rit y Ru li ng (“ SSR” ) 83 -1 0 fu rth er el ab or at es on sed en tary workby pro vi di ng th at

“pe rio ds of s ta nd in g o r wal ki ng sh ou ldge ne ral ly tot al no m or e th anab ou t 2 ho ur s of an8-h ou r workd ay , andsi tt in g s ho ul d g en eral ly tot al ap pr ox im at el y 6 h ou rs of 5an8-h ou r workd ay .” SSR 8 3- 10 , ava il ab le at 1 98 3 WL 31 25 1.

Afte r th or ou ghrev ie w of the reco rdan d t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we con cl ud e th at subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce d oe s n otsupp ort the ALJ’s fi nd in g t ha t Si ve rio ha d t he RFC to pe rfo rm

m ed iu m work . It i s u nd is pu te d t ha t the ALJ erro ne ou sl y rel ie d o n t he RFC a ss es sm en t o f Zul ei kaMart inas am ed ic al op in io n, ev enth ou gh Mart in was a “ si ng le de ci si on m ak er” wi thno ap pa ren t m ed ic al cred en ti al . In Fl or id a, a s in gl e de ci si on m ak er (“ SDM”) is ass ig ne d t o m ak e th e in it ia l d is ab il it y de te rm in at io n aft er “ ap pr op ria te co ns ul ta ti on with am ed ic al or p sycho lo gi cal co ns ul ta nt .” See 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.9 06 (b )(2 ). Bu t the “ SDM” d es ig na ti on co nn ot es no m ed ic al cred en ti al s. See id . § 4 04 .90 6( a), (b )(2 ). Ind eed , th e SSA’s Pro gr am Oper at io ns Man ua l Syste m

(“ POMS” ) ex pl ic it ly dis ti ng ui sh es RFC a ss es sm en ts pro du cedby anSDM fro m

th os e p ro du cedby a m ed ic al co ns ul tant , andst at es th at

“ SDM-c om

pl et edform s ar e n otop in io n e vi de nc e atth e ap pe al s l ev el .” POMS § DI 2 45 10 .05 0, av ai labl e at ht tp s: // se cu re.s sa .go v/ ap ps 10 /p om s.n sf /l nx /0 42 45 10 05 0. As anSDM wit h n o 3 ap pa ren t m ed ic al cred en ti al , Mart in was n otanacce pt ab le m ed ic al so ur ce. Non ethe le ss , th e ALJ m is ta ke nl y tre at edMart in ’s op in io n t ha t Si ve rio co ul d We have pr eviously

noted that, “[w]hil e the POMS does not have the forc e of la w, it can 3 be per suasive.” Stroup v. B arnha rt, 327 F.3d 1258, 1262 ( 11th Cir. 2003).

6pe rfo rm

m ed iu m workas t he “ ex pe rt o pi ni on ” o f a “ DDS ph y si ci an [],” “ St at e Age nc y ph y si ci an [],” and“ DDS m ed ic al co ns ul ta nt [].” Thi s was no t a h arm le ss erro r. The ALJ’s o pi ni on sh ows no t o nl y th atth e ALJ l ab or edun de r th e m is ta ke n b el ie f th atMart in ’s RFC as se ss m en t h adbe en au th or edby a ph y si ci an , bu t al so th athe gave Mart in ’s RFC as se ss m en t

“ si gn ifi can t wei gh t.” Th e rem ai ni ng reco rdev id en ce d oe s n otpro vi de subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce fo r th e fi nd in g t ha t Si ve rio was c ap ab le of p erfo rm in g m ed iu m work . Oth er tha n M art in ’s op in io n, wh ic h t he ALJ erro ne ou sl y rel ie d upo n a s a m ed ic al op in io n, the re i s n ot hi ng inth e rec or d t ha t co ul d h av e rea so nabl y ledth e ALJ t o co nc lu de th atSiv eri o c ou ldoc cas io na ll y li ft f ift y po un ds an d fr eque nt ly lift twen ty-fiv e p ou nd s, an d t hu s p erfo rm m ed iu m work . Thu s, i t ap pe ars itwas pr im ari ly on t he ba si s o f Marti n’s RF C as se ss m en t tha t the ALJ co nc lu de d tha t Si ve rio co ul d p erfo rm

m ed iu m work . Becau se subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce d oe s n ot supp ort thi s fi nd in g, we re ve rs e an d re m an d fo r rec on si de rat io n o f Si ve rio ’s RFC. III. The ALJ m

us t s ta te with p art ic ul ari ty the weig htgi ve n d iff eren t m ed ic al op in io ns an d t he reas on s fo r do in g s o. Sh arfa rz v . Bowe n, 8 25 F.2d27 8, 2 79 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 7) . The ALJ m ay rejectan y

m ed ic al op in io n i f th e ev id en ce supp orts a co nt rary fin di ng . Id. Nev erthe le ss , a tre at in g p hysic ia n’s o pi ni on ab ou t 7th e n atur e an d s ev eri ty of a cl ai m an t’s i m pa irment i s g en eral ly giv enco nt ro ll in g weig htif i t i s wel l s up po rte d andis no t i nc on si st en t wi th th e o th er s ub st an ti al ev id en ce. 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .15 27 (d )(2 ). A trea ti ng ph y si ci an ’s op in io n i s g iv en

“ subs ta nt ia l o r co ns id erab le weig htun le ss ‘ go odcau se ’ is sh own to th e co nt rary.” Ph il li ps , 35 7 F .3dat 1 24 0. Go odcau se ex is ts when : (1 ) th e tr eat in g p hysic ia n’s op in io n i s n otbo ls te redby the ev id en ce; (2) ev id en ce s up po rts a co nt rary fin di ng ; or(3) th e tr eat in g p hysic ia n’s o pi ni on was c on cl us ory or i nc on si st en t wi th th e ph y si ci an ’s ownm ed ic al reco rd s. Id . at 1 24 0– 41 . The ALJreject edth e m ed ic al op in io n o f Si ve rio ’s tre at in g p hysic ia n, Dr. Su arez , inso far as th e o pi ni onin di cat ed“ th atth e cl ai m an t i s n otcap ab le of se de nt ary work.” The ALJ ’s exp la na ti on fordo in g s o was th atDr. Sua rez’s op in io n abo utSiv eri o’s capa ci ty to d o s ed en ta ry workwas “ no t co ns is te ntwith t he ot he r ev id en ce o f rec or d a s d is cu ss edinth e b od y of t he de ci si on .” Siv eri o arg ue s th is ex pl an at io n was in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh go odcau se fordi sc ou nt in g t he op in io n o f hi s treat in g p hysic ia n. We ho ldth atth e ALJ’s art ic ul at edreas on was supp orte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Inhi s Fe bruary

20 08 an d J anua ry

20 09 ass es sm en ts , Dr. Suarez o pi ne d t ha t in aneig ht -h ou r workd ay Siv eri o c ou ldon ly sitfor fiv e h ou rs , st an d fo r two ho ur s, an d wal k fo r on e h ou r. Bec au se sed en ta ry workge ne ral ly requ ire s b ei ng ab le to 8si t fo r ap pr ox im at el y si x h ou rs to ta l i n an e ig ht -h ou r workd ay , 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 56 7( a); SSR 8 3- 10 , Dr. Suarez’s as se ss m en ts su gg es te d t ha t Si ve rio m ay no t be cap ab le of s ed en ta ry

work . Howev er, o th er m ed ic al ev id en ce i nd ic at edth e co nt rary. Fo r ex am pl e, Dr. Mu th fou ndth atSiv eri o c ou ldst an d, s it , or wal k fo r ab ou t s ix ho ur s i n a n e ig ht ho urwork da y , andwas thu s capabl e o f se de nt ary work. In ad di ti on , inbo th Sep te m be r 20 05 an d J anua ry

20 06 , Dr. Coh enin di cat edth atSiv eri o h adno res tri ct io ns inhi s ab il it y

to st an d, wal k, s it , or c li m b. Thus , th ere was subs ta nt ia l reco rdev id en ce tha t was in co ns is te ntwith Dr. Su arez ’s op in io n re gard in g Si ve rio ’s in cap aci ty to p erfo rm th e fu ll ran ge of s ed en ta ry work . The ALJ th eref or e act edwithi n t he bo un ds of h is di sc ret io n wh enhe di sc ou nt edDr. Su arez ’s op in io n re ga rd in g t hi s s pe ci fic m at te r. See Ph il li ps , 35 7 F .3dat 12 40 –4 1. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm as t o t hi s i ss ue . REVERSED inpa rt, AFFIRMED inpa rt.

9