[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-12306

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:15-cv-80548-DLB

LORETTA BANKS, 

for Jonathan C. Hunter, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 21, 2017)

Before TJOFLAT, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 1 of 16 
2

Loretta Banks, on behalf of her son, Jonathan Hunter, appeals the district 

court’s order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of 

supplemental security income (“SSI”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). Banks

raises three issues on appeal. First, she argues that the Appeals Council erred by 

finding that evidence she submitted after the ALJ hearing did not relate back to the 

period on or before the ALJ’s decision. Second, Banks asserts that the ALJ 

improperly evaluated the opinion evidence. Third, she contends that the ALJ erred 

in concluding that Hunter’s impairments did not meet, medically equal, or 

functionally equal a listing impairment. 

The Appeals Council properly determined that the new evidence Banks 

submitted did not relate to the period on or before the ALJ’s decision. The new 

evidence post-dated the decision, stemmed from experiences outside the relevant 

time period, and described the onset of a new condition. Second, the ALJ properly 

evaluated the opinions of Hunter’s treating physician, State medical agency 

consultants, Banks, and Hunter’s teacher, assigning appropriate weight to each and 

evaluating accordingly. Third, the ALJ did not err in concluding that Hunter’s 

impairments did not meet a listing impairment. The evidence failed to show he 

met the criteria of Listing 14.09, and the ALJ did not need to consult an expert on 

medical equivalence because the evidence sufficiently supported a determination 

of the claim. Furthermore, Banks waived her argument that Hunter’s impairments 

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 2 of 16 
3

medically or functionally equaled a listing impairment by failing to argue the 

merits, cite authority, or proffer evidence supporting each conclusion. 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

I.

Banks first argues that the new evidence she submitted to the Appeals 

Council substantiates the severity of Hunter’s mental impairment and is contrary to 

the weight of the ALJ’s findings and conclusions. Banks asserts that the evidence

showed that Hunter received treatment for depression, needed additional time for 

school work, faced limitations in learning, walking, sitting, and breathing, and 

received extra time to complete assignments and exams. She argues that although 

she produced the new evidence in the month following the ALJ decision, it relates 

to Hunter’s disability during the relevant time period.

When the Appeals Council refuses to consider new evidence submitted to it 

and denies review, the decision is subject to judicial review. Washington v. Soc. 

Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 806 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). We review de novo

whether evidence meets the new, material, and chronologically relevant standard. 

See id. at 1321. When the Appeals Council erroneously refuses to consider 

evidence, it commits legal error and remand is appropriate. Id. When a claimant 

properly submits new evidence to the Appeals Council, a reviewing court must 

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 3 of 16 
4

consider whether that new evidence renders the denial of benefits erroneous. 

Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2007).

The Appeals Council must consider new, material, and chronologically 

relevant evidence that the claimant submits. Washington, 806 F.3d at 1320; 20 

C.F.R. § 416.1476(b)(1). Evidence is chronologically relevant if it “relates to the 

period on or before the date” of the ALJ’s decision. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 416.1476(b)(1). 

We previously recognized that medical opinions based on treatment 

occurring after the date of the ALJ’s decision may be chronologically relevant. 

See Washington, 806 F.3d at 1322. In Washington, we determined that medical 

opinions based on treatment occurring after the ALJ’s decision were 

chronologically relevant when based on experiences occurring during the time 

period prior to the ALJ’s decision and a review of medical records from the period 

before the ALJ’s decision. Id. 

The Appeals Council properly determined that the new evidence did not 

relate to the period on or before the ALJ’s decision. The new evidence post-dated 

the decision, was not based on experiences from the relevant time period, and

described the onset of a new condition. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1476(b)(1);

Washington, 806 F.3d at 1322. Both Dr. Kassover’s letter and the 504 

Modification Plan were dated after February 18, 2014, and the evidence failed to 

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 4 of 16 
5

show the chronological relevance of these documents to the period before the 

ALJ’s decision. See Washington, 806 F.3d at 1322. Dr. Kassover’s letter merely 

stated that Hunter was “being seen for depression,” without further explanation of 

when she began seeing Hunter, whether she medically diagnosed Hunter with

depression, or whether Hunter suffered from depression prior to the date of the 

letter. Unlike in Washington, evidence failed to indicate that Dr. Kassover based 

his assessment on experiences occurring during the relevant time period or on her 

review of medical records from the period before the ALJ’s decision. See 806 F.3d 

at 1322. Additionally, even if the letter constituted a medical diagnosis, it 

described the onset of a new condition after the date of the ALJ decision. While 

Banks testified at the ALJ hearing that Hunter was “depressed sometimes,” a 

search of the record and notes from Hunter’s treating physician did not indicate a 

medically determinable mental impairment relating to depression through the date 

of the ALJ’s decision. Finally, the 504 Modification Plan was created pursuant to 

a meeting occurring after the ALJ’s decision, and did not state that the 

accommodations listed were implemented on or before February 18, 2014. 

Therefore, the Appeals Council properly determined that the new evidence Banks 

submitted did not relate back to the period on or before February 18, 2014. 

II.

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 5 of 16 
6

Banks argues that although the ALJ purported to accord controlling weight 

to the opinion of Hunter’s treating physician, Dr. Goodman, the ALJ failed to 

acknowledge Dr. Goodman’s statements that Hunter’s arthritis resulted in

significant and marked functional limitation or Dr. Goodman’s concern that 

Hunter’s disease could lead to significant joint damage and progressive loss of 

function if untreated. She also contends that the ALJ improperly weighted the 

State agency medical consultants’ opinions because the consultants never

examined Hunter personally or reviewed Dr. Goodman’s treatment notes that postdated their opinions. Banks further argues that the ALJ improperly concluded that 

a Function Report completed by Banks and a Teacher Questionnaire completed by 

Hunter’s homeroom teacher showed that Hunter faced no problems in any of the 

six functional equivalence domains. Banks asserts that the ALJ inadequately 

weighed the forms because they contradicted the ALJ’s conclusion regarding 

Hunter’s domains of movement, manipulating objects, health, and physical well 

being.

We review the ALJ’s decision for substantial evidence, and the ALJ’s legal 

conclusions de novo. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Winschel v. 

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

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 6 of 16 
7

All medical opinions in a claimant’s case record must be considered together 

with other relevant evidence received. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(b). The testimony of a 

treating physician deserves substantial or considerable weight unless good cause is 

shown to the contrary. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). 

Good cause exists where the evidence failed to bolster the doctor’s opinion, the 

evidence supported a contrary finding, or the doctor’s opinions were conclusory or 

inconsistent with their own medical records. Id.

State agency medical consultants are highly qualified and considered experts 

in Social Security disability evaluation. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(e)(2)(i). The 

regulations require an ALJ to consider findings and opinions of State agency 

medical consultants as opinion evidence, except for the ultimate determination 

about whether a claimant is disabled. See id.

There is no rigid requirement that the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of 

evidence in his decision. Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005).

The ALJ properly considered the opinion evidence in the record. First, the 

ALJ accorded controlling weight to Dr. Goodman’s opinion, which indicated the 

weakness of Hunter’s grip strength, that he did not need an assistive device to walk 

independently, and that he may have trouble with sustained manipulation due to 

involvement of the right wrist. Nonetheless, the ALJ concluded that this did not 

rise to the level of marked or extreme limitations on Hunter’s ability to function. 

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 7 of 16 
8

The ALJ did not specifically mention Dr. Goodman’s statements that Hunter’s 

arthritis led to significant and marked functional limitation, or indicate Dr. 

Goodman’s concern that Hunter’s disease could lead to significant joint damage 

and progressive loss of function if untreated. However, the ALJ need not 

specifically refer to every piece of evidence in his decision. Dyer, 395 F.3d at 

1211. Dr. Goodman’s statements were vague, conclusory, and failed to explain the 

type of marked functional limitation Hunter experienced or the domains in which 

his disease limited him. See Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440 (indicating that good cause 

exists to refrain from giving substantial or considerable weight to a treating 

physician’s conclusory opinions). Moreover, Dr. Goodman’s statement of concern 

over potential future joint damage was speculative and failed to describe Hunter’s 

limitations at the time of evaluation.

Second, the ALJ properly weighed the opinions of the State agency medical 

consultants. Although Dr. Hernandez and Dr. Prather reviewed the evidence in 

April 2012 and July 2012, respectively, the ALJ considered their opinions along 

with subsequent evidence, as indicated by his reference to Dr. Goodman’s 

treatment notes from October 2012 through December 2013. Moreover, despite 

the fact that neither Dr. Hernandez nor Dr. Prather personally treated Hunter, the 

regulations provide that non-examining sources may offer opinion evidence and 

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 8 of 16 
9

that State agency medical consultants are highly qualified and considered experts 

in Social Security disability evaluations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(e).

Third, the ALJ properly considered the Function Report and the Teacher 

Questionnaire. He accorded great weight to both forms, which he concluded 

indicated that Hunter faced no problems in any of the six domains. The Report 

indicated through checked boxes that Hunter’s eyesight was impaired, his physical 

abilities were limited, his impairments affected his ability to help himself and 

cooperate with others in taking care of his personal needs, and his ability to focus 

on a task was limited. However, in the sections reserved for explanation adjacent 

to these areas, the form lacked a description of Hunter’s limitations. Hence, the 

ALJ’s statement that the Function Report indicated no problems in the six 

functional equivalence domains is consistent with the absence of any explanatory 

information in the Report.

Furthermore, the Teacher Questionnaire indicated that Hunter faced 

problems playing cooperatively with other children, making friends, seeking 

attention appropriately, and following rules. Additionally, Hunter required 

behavior modification strategies and was suspended for fighting. However, Dr. 

Draper also indicated that Hunter encountered no problems in this domain and that 

his functioning appeared age-appropriate. Out of the thirteen total activities in the 

domain, Hunter received a “no problem” rating of 1/5 in nine activities. He did not 

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 9 of 16 
10

receive any ratings above the “obvious problem” level of 3/5. Dr. Draper indicated 

that Hunter showed age-appropriate functioning in all domains except for health 

and well-being, of which she was unsure. Thus, the ALJ’s statement that the 

Teacher Questionnaire indicated no problems in the six functional equivalence 

domains is consistent with the ratings Dr. Draper assigned to Hunter. Even though 

the ALJ did not expressly discuss Dr. Draper’s ratings of slight or obvious 

problems, the ALJ was not required to refer to every piece of evidence in his 

decision. See Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1211. 

Thus, the ALJ properly evaluated the opinions of Hunter’s treating 

physician, the State medical agency consultants, Banks, and Hunter’s teacher, 

assigning the appropriate weight to each and evaluating accordingly. The ALJ’s 

conclusions that the medical opinions, the Function Report, and the Teacher 

Questionnaire indicated no problems or less-than-marked problems in the six 

functional equivalence domains is consistent with the opinion evidence.

III.

Banks argues that the ALJ erred in concluding that Hunter’s impairments did 

not meet or medically equal Listing 14.09, inflammatory arthritis. She contends

that the ALJ failed to consider the severity of Hunter’s depression, difficulty 

concentrating, and side effects from medication, and that the evidence in the 

record, such as Hunter’s school records and Dr. Goodman’s treatment notes, 

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 10 of 16 
11

document the severity of Hunter’s physical and mental impairments and their 

resulting functional limitations. She also asserts that the ALJ failed in its 

obligation to obtain the advice of a medical expert on the issue of medical 

equivalence. Finally, Banks contends that Dr. Goodman’s records show that 

Hunter had either a marked or extreme limitation in four of the functional 

equivalence domains, and, thus, his impairments functionally equaled a listing 

impairment. 

The ALJ did not err in concluding that Hunter’s impairments did not meet a 

listing impairment, because the evidence did not show that he met the criteria of 

any of the subsections of Listing 14.09. Further, the ALJ was not required to 

consult an expert on medical equivalence, as the evidence was sufficient to support 

a determination of the claim. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.919a(b); Ingram, 496 F.3d at 

1269. Finally, Banks waived her argument that Hunter’s impairments medically or 

functionally equaled a listing impairment by making no arguments on the merits of 

each claim and citing to no authority or evidence to support each conclusion. See

Hamilton, 680 F.3d at 1319.

In determining whether an individual under the age of 18 is disabled, the 

Commissioner uses a three-step, sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 416.924(a). This process includes an analysis of whether the claimant: (1) is 

engaging in substantial gainful activity; (2) has a severe and medically 

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 11 of 16 
12

determinable impairment or a combination of impairments that is severe; and 

(3) has an impairment, or combination thereof, that meets or medically equals, or 

functionally equals, a Listing, and additionally meets the duration requirements. 

20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a)-(d); see also id. § 416.926 (describing “medical 

equivalence”); id. § 416.926a (describing “functional equivalence”). At step two, 

the ALJ considers “all relevant information,” such as evidence from medical 

sources and nonmedical sources, including testimony from the child’s parents and 

teachers. Id. § 416.924a(a)(1)-(2). At step three, the ALJ looks to whether the 

claimant has “marked” limitations in at least two of six domains, or an “extreme” 

limitation in one domain. Id. § 416.926a(d); see id. § 416.926a(g)-(l). These 

domains are: (1) acquiring and using information; (2) attending and completing 

tasks; (3) interacting and relating with others; (4) moving about and manipulating 

objects; (5) caring for oneself; and (6) health and physical well-being. Id.

§ 416.926a(b)(1).

To meet the criteria for subsections A and C1 of Listing 14.09, a claimant 

must show “persistent inflammation or deformity in one major peripheral weightbearing joint resulting in the inability to ambulate effectively . . . or one major 

peripheral joint in each upper extremity resulting in the inability to perform fine 

and gross movements effectively.” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 1, 

§ 14.09(D)(6)(e)(i). An inability to ambulate effectively means an “extreme 

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 12 of 16 
13

limitation of the ability to walk,” such as when a person needs to use a walker or 

cannot perform routine activities such as shopping or banking. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, 

Subpt. P., App. 1, § 1.00(B)(2)(b)(1)-(2). Inability to perform fine and gross motor 

movements refers to an extreme loss of functioning in both hands. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 

404, Subpt. P., App. 1, § 1.00(B)(2)(c). To meet listing-level severity of 

subsections B, C2, and D, the arthritis must involve various combinations of 

complications of one or more major peripheral joints or other joints, such as 

inflammation or deformity, extra-articular features, repeated manifestations, and 

constitutional symptoms or signs. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 1, 

§ 14.09(D)(6)(e)(ii). Meeting subsections C1 and C2 involves showing a diagnosis 

of ankylosing spondylitis1 or other spondyloarthropathies.2

 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, 

Subpt. P., App. 1, § 14.09.C. While the ALJ has a duty to develop the record, he 

need not order a consultative examination as long as the record contains sufficient 

evidence for him to make an informed decision. Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 

Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1269 (11th Cir. 2007). The regulations stipulate that, in 

cases that proceed to the ALJ level, the responsibility for deciding medical 

equivalence rests with the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926(e). Ordering a consultative 

 1 Ankylosing spondylitis is an inflammatory disease that, over time, can cause some of the 

vertebrae in the spine to fuse. See Ankylosing spondylitis – Mayo Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Nov. 1, 

2016, http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ankylosing-spondylitis/home/ovc20261048. 2 Spondyloarthropathies are a group of arthritic diseases that can cause inflammation of the 

spine. See Spondylitis – Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Nov. 4, 2014, 

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/spondyloarthropathy.

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 13 of 16 
14

examination is a discretionary matter for the ALJ and would be sought “to try to 

resolve an inconsistency in the evidence or when the evidence as a whole is 

insufficient to support a determination or decision” on the claim. 20 C.F.R. § 

416.919a(b). 

A passing reference to an issue in a brief is insufficient, and the failure to 

make arguments and cite authorities in support of an issue results in waiver. 

Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1319.

Banks fails to demonstrate that Hunter met the criteria for Listing 14.09,3 as 

his impairments did not meet the severity of any of its subsections. No evidence 

shows that Hunter suffered from persistent inflammation or deformity that caused

an inability to walk effectively or perform fine or gross motor functions, a need for 

an assistive device to walk, or an extreme loss of functioning in both hands. See 

20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 1, §§ 1.00(B)(2)(b)(1)–(2), 14.09(D)(6)(e)(i). 

Dr. Goodman indicated that Hunter had 5/5 grip strength and did not need a handheld assistive device to walk independently. Although Dr. Goodman stated that 

Hunter may have trouble performing sustained fine or gross manipulations due to 

involvement of the right wrist, he did not state that Hunter faced an extreme loss of 

 3 The Commissioner contends that Banks waived the entire issue of whether Hunter’s 

impairments met or medically equaled a listing impairment. See Hamilton, 680 F.3d at 1319. 

However, Banks cites to specific evidence and symptoms that she contends the ALJ overlooked 

in its analysis and, thus, sufficiently argues that Hunter met or equaled the criteria of Listing 

14.09. However, to the extent that Banks argues that Hunter met or equaled the criteria of a 

listing impairment other than 14.09, she waived the argument by failing to name the impairment, 

any of its criteria, or any evidence to support such a conclusion. See Hamilton, 680 F.3d at 1319. 

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 14 of 16 
15

functioning in both hands. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 1, § 

1.00(B)(2)(c).

Furthermore, the record fails to demonstrate that Hunter had various 

combinations of complications of one or more major peripheral joints or other 

joints, such as inflammation or deformity, extra-curricular features, repeated 

manifestations, and constitutional symptoms or signs. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, 

Subpt. P, App. 1, § 14.09(D)(6)(e)(ii). Dr. Goodman noted in March 2012 that 

Hunter’s condition was not inflammatory. He noted between January 2012 and 

December 2013 that “pertinent negatives” included activity limitation, fatigue, 

headache, joint swelling, and weight loss, as well as weakness on all of these visits 

except January 2013. Moreover, no diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis or other 

spondyloarthropathies existed to satisfy subsection C. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, 

Subpt. P., App. 1, § 14.09.C. Accordingly, Hunter’s impairments did not meet the 

criteria of Listing 14.09. 

Regarding medical equivalence, Banks waived her argument that Hunter’s 

impairments medically equaled a listing impairment. She makes no arguments on 

the merits of the issue and cites no authority or evidence to support that conclusion. 

See Hamilton, 680 F.3d at 1319. Banks merely includes a one-sentence 

argument—a conclusory statement that Dr. Goodman’s records show that Hunter 

demonstrated a marked or extreme limitation in the domains of attending and 

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 15 of 16 
16

completing tasks, interacting and relating with others, caring for himself, and 

health and physical well-being. See Hamilton, 680 F.3d at 1319. In addition, 

Banks’s contention that the ALJ had a duty to consult an expert on the issue of 

medical equivalence is meritless. The ALJ is not required to do so because the 

record contained sufficient evidence to reach an informed decision, and the 

evidence as a whole sufficiently supported a determination of the claim. See 20 

C.F.R. § 416.919(b); Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1269. For example, the evidence 

included records spanning two years of notes from Hunter’s treating physician, as 

well as a Function Report, school records, and the opinions of two State agency 

medical consultants.

In conclusion, upon review of the record and consideration of the briefs, we 

affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-12306 Date Filed: 04/21/2017 Page: 16 of 16