FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT MAR 09, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15638 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 8 8 0 - CV- J - 3 2 - HTS S H E R R Y E . W A I N W R I G H T , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C OMMI S S I ON E R OF T HE S OC I AL S E C UR I T Y A D M I N I S T R A T I O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 9, 2007) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S he r r y E . W a i nw r i ght ap pe a l s the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s or de ra f f i r m i ng the S oci al S ec uri ty C om m i ss i on er ’ s deni al of her appl i ca t i on s f o r d isabi l i ty i nsuranceThe pa rties conse nted to the exercise of jurisdiction by

a mag istrate judg e pursua nt to 28 1 U.S.C. 636(c). 2 b e n e f i t s , f i l e d pur s u a n tt o 4 2 U . S. C. § § 4 0 5 ( g ) , a n d s u p p l e me n t a l s e c u r i ty i n c o me ( “ S S I ” ) , f

i l e d pur s ua ntt o 42 U . S . C . § 1383( c ) ( 3 ). A f t e ra n e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng, the adm i ni stra t i ve l aw j ud ge (“ A L J” ) c on cl ud ed thatW ai n w ri gh tw as abl e t o p er form a wi d e r a n g e o f

l i g h tt o s e d e n t a r y wo r k . Th e m a g i s tr a t e j u d g e a f f i r m e d . On

1 a p p e a l, W a in w r ig h t a r g u e s th a t t h e A L J e r r e d b y f a ilin g to g iv e s u f

f ic ie n t w e ig h t to the op i ni o n of her examini ng psyc ho l og i st , D r. W i l l i am E . B ea ty, w ho op i ned t hat W a in w r ig h t w a s u n a b l e to c o m p le te a n o r m a l w o r k d a y o rw o r k w e e k d u e to ps y c hol ogi c a l l y ba s e d s y m p t om s , a nd s he w a s nota bl e t o pe r f or m a ta c ons i s t e nt pa c e w i thouta n unr e a so n ab l e num be ra nd l e ngth of r e s tpe r i ods . A f

t e rc a r e f ul r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. O u rr e v ie w o f t h e C o m m is s io n e r ’s d e c is io n is lim ite d to a n in q u ir y in to w hethe rthe r e i s s ub s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t o s up po r tthe f i nd i ng s of

the Comm i s si on er , an d w h eth er the corre ctl egal st andards w er e app l i ed. S ee 42 U . S . C . § 4 05 (g); C ra w ford v. C om m ’ r of S oc. S ec . , 36 3 F .3 d 11 55 , 11 58 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ); M c R obert s v . B ow e n, 841 F . 2d 1077, 1080 ( 11th C i r . 1988) . T hus , “ [ e ] ve n i f the e vi de nc e pr e ponde r a t e s a ga i ns tthe C om m i s s i one r ’ s f i ndi ngs , w e m u st affi r m i f the deci si on re ac hed i s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence. ” C raw fo rd , 3 6 3 F . 3d at 1 1 5 8 -5 9 (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). S u b sta n tia l e v i d en ce i s “ su ch rel ev an tev i d en ce as a3

r e a s ona b l e p e r s o n w o u l d a c c e p ta s a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r ta c o n c l u s i o n . ” I d . a t1 1 55; s e e a l s o M c R obe r t s , 841 F . 2d a t1080 ( hol di ng tha ts ubs t a n t i al ev i de nc e “ m us tdo m or e tha n c r e a t e a su sp i ci o n o f the e xi s t e nc e of the f a c tt o be e s t a bl i s he d” ) . T he C om m i ss i on er ’ s f

ac tual fi nd i ng s a re concl u siv e i f s up po rt ed by subst ant i al e vi de nc e . M a r t i n v. S ul l i v an, 894 F . 2d 1520, 1529 ( 11th C i r . 1990) ; A l l e n v. B row n, 81 6 F . 2d 60 0, 60 2 (11 th C i r. 19 87 ). T he part i es ar e f

am i l i arw i th t h e u n derl yi ng fa ct s, w hi ch w er e det ai l ed at l e n g th b y b o th th e A LJ a n d th e ma g i s tr a t e j u d g e i n th e i r o r d e r s , a nd w e do not r e c ountth em a ga i n he r e . O n a ppe a l , W a i nw r i ghta r gue s tha tthe A L J f a i l e d t o gi ve adequat e w ei gh tt o t he op i ni on of exam i ni n g p sy ch ol og i stD r. B ea ty, w ho as se ss ed he ra bi l i ty t o co m p l e t e a nor m a l w or kda y a nd w or kw e e k a s a n e xtr e m e l i m i t a t i on c o n s titu tin g a d is ab ility . A c l a i m a nt ap p l yi n g f orbe ne f i t s m us tpr ove tha ts he i s di s a bl e d. S e e 20 C . F . R . § § 4 04 . 15 12 , 41 6. 91 2; Jones v. A pfel , 19 0 F . 3d 12 24 , 12 28 (11t h C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) . “ D i s a b i l i ty ” i s d e f i n e d a s th e “ i n a b i l i ty t o e n g a g e i n a n y s u b s t a nt i a l ga i nf ul a c t i vi ty by r e a s on of

a ny m ed i c a l l y de t e r m i na bl e phy s i c a l orm e nt a l i m pa i r m e nt w hi c h . . . c a n be e xpe c t e d t o l a s t f or a c ont i nuous pe r i od of not l ess t h an 12 m on ths. ” 42 U .S .C . § 42 3(d)(1)(A ). T he S oci al S ec uri ty R egul at i on s out l i ne a f i ve - s t e p s e que nt i a l e va l ua t i on pr oc e s s ( “ S E P ” ) f orde t e r m i ni ng w h et h er a c l a i m a ntThe fivesteps for de terminingwhether a claimant is disabled areas follows: (1) the 2 disability examiner deter

mines whether the claimant is engag ed in “substantial g ainful ac tivity ;” (2) if not, the examiner decide s whether the claimant’ s condition or impairment is “severe,”meaning that it significa

ntly limit s claimant’s physical or mental a bility to do basic work a ctivities; (3) if so, the examiner dec ides whether the c laiman t ’s i mpairment mee ts or equals the se verity of the s p e c i f i e d i mp a i r m e nt s i nth e L i s t i n g s o f Imp a i r m e nt s , th e r eb y p r e c lu d i n g any g a i n f u lw o r k a c t i v i ty; (4) if the claimant has a severe impairment that does not meet or equal the severity of an impairment in the L istings, the ex aminer assesses a claimant’s “residual functional capacity ,” which measure s whether a claimant can perfor

m past releva

nt work despite the impair men t ; (5 ) finally , if the claimant is unable to do pa st releva nt work, the e x aminer de termines whe ther in light of residual funct i o n i n g capacity , ag e, educ ation, and wor k experience , the claimant c an perform other work. See Cray ton v. Callahan, 120 F .3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir. 1997); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a) (4), 404.1505(a) . At step four of

the SEP, the ex aminer a ssesses the a pplicant’s re sidual functional 3 capacity , which “me asure s whether a claimant can performpast rele vant work de spite his or her imp a ir me nt. ”Wils on

v. B arnha

rt , 28 4 F .3 d 12 19 , 12 27 (1 1th Cir . 20 02 ). “ I f t hec laima nt i s una ble to do pa st re le va

nt wo rk , the e xaminer proc e e ds to thefi ft h a nd final st ep o f t

hee valuatio n p ro c e ss to determine whether

in light of [the RFC], age , educa tion, and work e xperience thecla i m ant ca n perf orm other wor

k.” I d. 4 i s di s a bl e d. 20 C . F . R . §§ 404. 15 20, 416. 920; Jo n es, 190 F . 3d a t1228. I n the 2 in s ta n t c a s e , a t s te p f

o u r o f th e S E P , th e A L J f

o u n d th a t W a in w r ig h t w a s u n a b le to p er fo rm her pas tre l evantw ork d ue t o an i m pai rm ent . O n app ea l , W ai nw ri gh t’ s a r gum e nt co n cerns the a na l y s i s a ts t e p f i ve , w hi c h a s ks w he the rthe i m pa i r m e nt prevent s the cl ai m antfr om perf orm i ng any o th er w ork. W ai nw ri gh tar gu es that 3 the A L J e rr ed by fa i l i ng t o con cl ud e, base d o n D r. B ea ty’ s op i ni on concerni ng her r e s i dua l f

unc t i oni ng c a pa c i ty , t ha ts he w a s una bl e t o pe r f or m a ny w or k a nd there fore w as ent i t l ed t o d i sabi l i ty benef i t s a nd S S I. W e di sa gree . T h e A L J m ay co n si d er v ari o u s fact o rs w h en w ei g h i n g m ed ic a l o p i n i o n s, i nc l udi ng: ( 1) the e xa m i ni ng r e l a t i ons hi p; ( 2) the na tur e a nd e xt e ntof the5

re l at i on s hi p; ( 3) w he the rthe me di c a l s ou r c e pr e s e nt s r e l e va nte vi de nc e t o s up port a n opi ni on; ( 4) w he the ra n opi ni on i s c ons i s t e ntw i th the r e c or d; an d (5 ) w h ethe ror notthe doc t ori s a s pe c i a l i s t . S e e 20 C . F . R . § 404. 1527( d) ( 1) - ( 6) . G e ne r a l l y , the op i ni on s of e xam i ni ng or tre at i ng ph ys i ci ans a re gi ven m ore w ei gh tthan no n-exam i ni ng or no n-tre at i ng ph ys i ci ans. S ee 20 C . F . R . § 4 04 . 15 27 (d)( 1), (2); s e e a l s o S h arfarz v. B ow e n, 825 F . 2d 278, 280 ( 11th C i r . 1987) ( “ T he opi ni ons of no n ex am i ni ng, r e vi e w i ng phy s i c i a ns , . . . w he n c ontr a r y t o thos e of the e xa m i ni ng p h y s ic ia n s , a r e e n title d t o l ittle w e ig h t, a n d s ta n d in g a lo n e d o n o t c o n s titu te s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e .” ) . M o reo v er, th e A L J m ay rej ectan y m ed i cal o p i n i o n i f th e ev i d en ce su p p o rts a c o n t r a r y f

i n d i n g . S y r o c k v . H e c k le r , 7 6 4 F .2 d 8 3 4 , 8 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) . I n h is e va l ua t i on of

the m e di cal ev i d enc e , the A L J m us ts t a t e w i th pa r t i c ul a r i ty the w e i ghtgi ve n di f

f e r e ntm e di c a l opi ni ons a nd th e r e a s ons the r e f or . S ha r f

a r z , 825 F .2 d a t 2 7 9 . I n a d d itio n , th e A L J m u s t “a lw a y s c o n s id e rth e m e d ic a l o p in i o n s in [ the ] c a s e r e c or d t oge the rw i th the r e s tof th e rel ev an t e vi de nc e . . . r e c e i ve [ d] . ” 20 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 7 ( b ) . H e r e , s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the A L J ’ s c onc l us i on, a ts t e p f i ve of the S E P , tha tW a i n w r i ghtw a s c a pa bl e of pe r f or m i ng l i ghtt o s e de nt a r y w or k. T he A L J w a s e n title d to r e

je c t D r . B e a ty ’s o p in io n b e c a u s e h is o p in io n w a s c o n tr a r y to6

the opi ni ons a nd a s s e s s m e nt s of the othe rs t a t e a ge nc y ps y c hol o g i st s w ho f ound thatW ai nw ri gh tw as o n ly m od er at el y l i m i t ed i n h erabi l i ty t o p er form w ork-re l at ed a c t i vi t i e s . S i nc e he e xa m i ne d W a i nw r i ghtonl y onc e , D r . B e a ty w as nota tr e a t i ng ph ys i ci an and h is o p i ni on w as no tent i t l ed t o any spec i al w ei gh t , part i cul ar l y s i nce it w a s c o n tr a d ic te d b y th e o th e rm e d ic a l e v id e n c e . T h e A L J s ta te d w ith p a r tic u la r it y t h a t h e w a s a s s ig n in g s u b s ta n tia l w e ig h t to the opi ni ons of

the s t a t e a ge nc y ps y c hol ogi s t s and c l e a r l y a r t i c ul a t e d hi s r e a s ons f o r d o i n g so . H e al so n o t ed th at D r. B eaty’ s o p i n i o n w as l ess p ersu asi v e b eca u s e it w a s : ( 1) m a t e r i a l l y i nco n si st e ntw i th the r e c or d; ( 2) notw e l l s uppor t e d; ( 3 ) i n c o n s i s t e n t w i th W a i n w r i g h t ’ s o w n c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f h e r me n t a l h e a l th ; a nd ( 4 ) b a s e d o n D r . Be a ty ’ s p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n a n d t e s t i n g p e r f o r m e d on W ai nw ri gh tfour ye ar s e ar l i er . T hese re as on s a re expl i ci t , adequat e, and sup p o rt ed b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n th e r e c o r d . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.