NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 08a0115n.06 Filed: F ebrua

ry 22, 2008 No. 07-3344 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
GARY P. ANTHON Y, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. MI CHAEL

J . ASTRUE, Commi ssioner of Social Sec urity , De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM T H E UNI TED STATES DI STR I CT C OU RT F OR TH E SO UT HE RN DI STRI CT OF OH I O

OPI NI ON

Before: G UY, G ILMAN, and McK EAGU E, Circuit Judges

. RONALD LEE GILMAN, Cir cuit Judge . Ga ry P. A nth on y

a pp e a ls the de nia l of

his application for

Disability

I nsuranc e Bene fits (DI B) under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423. The a dminist rative la

w j udg e (AL J ) concluded t hat Anthony was not disabled, and the district court affi rm e d. On

a pp e a l, A nth on y

a rgue s th a t th e AL J er

re d in (1 ) d e te rm ini ngthat no t a ll o f h is impairments wer e seve re, ( 2) finding that none of his impairments met the cri teria f or the Social Se c ur ity Ad min istratio n’ s ( SSA ’s ) L ist ing s of Impa ir me nts (t he “ L ist ing s” ), (3 ) f

a ili ngto p ro pe rl y acknow ledg e and give sufficie nt defe renc e to the opi nion of hi s treating phy sician, (4) concluding that Anthony ’s testimony , and the testimony of his witnesses, wa s not fully cre dible, and (5) finding that he was not disa

bled beca use he reta ined the residual functional capa city to perfor m a sig nificantNo. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 2 - number of jobs in the national economy . For the re asons set for

th below, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. BACKG ROUND A. Vo c at ion al b ac kgr ound, im pai r m e nt s, and m e dic al t r e at m e nt Anthony was born in 1948 and rece ived a high school education. He se rved ove rsea s in the Marine Corps a

nd then worke d as a truck driver for most of his life . The last time that he he ld a job was in 1997. Anthony was in a serious motorcy cle acc ident in 1978 and was hospitalized for a y ear . After the ac ci d en t , h e beg an to experienc e seizures. Anthony curr ently complains of memory

loss and blackouts, as we ll as pain in his hip, right leg , an d l ef t shoulder. An old fra cture in his right leg

cause s his foot to pronate and c reates a deg ree of i nstability when he walks on uneven g round. The inj ur y a lso c a us e s h im p ro ble ms w ithba lanc e , s tand ingfo r l on g pe ri od s o f t ime , a nd c lim bin g sta ir s. Finally , he has injure d tendons in his left hand that pre vent him from fully extending his fing ers. The medic al evidenc e in the administrative r ecor d consists of the opinions and diag noses of Anthony ’s treating phy sician, Dr. Pecar , and a long list of other doc tors and psy cholog ists that includes three neurolog ists (Drs. Fa rbman, Ke ndjelic, and Va n Cott), a consultative psy cholog ist (Dr. Bousque t), and a

state ag ency

ps yc h o lo g is t ( D r . Wint er) . Anthony has also re ceive d additional medical treatment throug h the Vete rans Administration (VA ) from Drs. Acha ry a, Dudley , Estevez, Gar dener , Groff , Kahn, Par sons, and Patel.No. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 3 - The pe rtinent medica l rec ords show that Anthony had a g rand mal seizure and at lea st two other seizures in 1997. He beg an rece iving care at a VA hospital in Dece mber of 1997, a nd was diag nosed with a seizure disorder . A doctor pr escr ibed Dilantin to control the seizures. I n 1999, Anthony repor

ted to D r. Ka

hn that he had not ha d a seizure f or a y ear , but stated that he wa s experiencing memory problems. L ater

that same y ear , Anthony soug ht treatmen t fr o m Dr. Parsons for a

n old frac ture in his leg

. X- ray s show some deg ener ative cha ng es, but no tissue

a bn or ma lit ie s. Dr . Pa

rs on s, afte r n oti ngtha

t th e c on dit ion

did no t “ in a

ny wa y c omp ro mis e his ambulation,” pre scribed shoe inserts. Anthony returne d to the VA hospital t wo months later and complained a g ain of foot trouble . Dr. Gr off diag nosed Anthony with malunion o f h is left tibia, but did not find any

“non-union” at the fr actur e site. I n Ap ri l o f 2 0 0 0 , Anthony repor ted that he ha d not had a se izure in two y ear s. A phy sical examination revea led no abnor malities. Notes from an a ppointment w i t h Dr

. P atel in December of 20 00 state tha

t A nth on y ha d n ot h a d a

se izur e sin c e 19 97 and

that his s e izur e dis or de r h a d b e e n s ta ble since 1998. I nea rl y 2 0 0 1 , An t h o n y

re p o rt edm o m en t ary

s p el l s o f b l ac k o u tan d

d i s o ri en t ati on up o nwa k i n g. An MRIreve aled mild atrophy of the bra in, but no abnormalities. Anthony repor ted memory confusion and sig ns of nig ht seizures later that y ear . Dr. Van Cott re commended that Anthony stop driving . Anthony

then under

went a ne uropsy cholog ical eva luation with Dr. Kendje lic in November of 20 01 . D r. Ke nd

je lic fo un d th a t A ntho ny ’s inte lle c t w a s in the low -a

ve ra g e ra ng e , th a t hi s proce ssing spe ed wa s border line, and that he ha d difficulty perf orming more than one task at a time. The doc tor also deter

mined, howeve r, that Anthony reta ined a strongability to learn throug h repe titiveNo. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 4 - tasks and could pe rfor

m well on simple attentional tasks. After Ant h o n y wa s diag nosed with a

c og nit ive dis or de r a

nd min or de pr e ssi on , D r. Ke nd

je lic re c omm e nd e d th a t A nth on y pa rt ic ipate in individual counseling and a me mory skills group. Fo l l o wi n g a n eu ro l o gi ca l ex am i n at i o ni nJ an u ary o f 2 0 0 2 , Dr

. Fa r

b m a n n o t edt h at al t h o u gh Anthony continued to complain about “ spells,” his EEG tests w ere normal. A phy sical examination also reve aled no a

bnormalities. The doc tor noted that it was “unclear ” if Anthony was still having seizures, but deter

mined that he shoul d stay on Dilantin beca use his seizure disorder

appea red to be well-c ontrolled with the medicine. A c on su ltativ e ps y c ho log ic a l e xam wa s c on du c te d b y Dr . B ou sq

ue t, a lic e ns e d p sy c ho log ist , in J anuar y of 2003. Anthony

repor ted havingseizures in 1997 and 1998, but stated that he ha d not had one in a “ g ood wh i l e. ” He did, however , repor t diz ziness, bouts of anxiety , and for g etfulness. Dr

. Bousque t determined that Anthony could proc ess information we ll if give n additional time, and noted that hi s expr e ssi on of e mot ion , insi g ht, re a so nin g , a nd jud g me nt w e re a ll a

pp ro pr ia te . A nth on y ’s fu ll

s ca l e IQ w as as s es s ed at 7 5

. T h e do ct o r di agn o s ed An t h o n y wi t h b o rd er l i n e i n t el l ec tu al fu n ct i o n i n g, but found that his other mental impairments we re mild. I n M a rc h o f 2 00 3, a

state a g e nc y

ps y c ho log ist , D r. Wint e r, re vie we d the me dic a l e vid e nc e in the re cord a

nd rate d Anthony ’s functioning in 18 differ ent mental ar eas. D r. Winter conclude d that An tho ny wa s n ot sig nif

ic antl y lim ite d in 12 ar e a s, bu t tha t he wa s “mo de rate ly lim ite d” in his a bil ity to respond to cha

ng es in the work se tting and to c omplete a nor mal workda

y without interruption, and tha t h e w a s “ ma

r k e d ly li mi te d ” in

h is a b il it y to u n d e r s ta

n d , r e me mb e r , a

n d c ar r y o u t d e tailedNo. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 5 - instructions. The doctor conclude d that Anthony ’s working memory for new information was g ood

and that he c ou ld u

nd e rs tand and re me mbe r s imp le ins tr

uc tio ns . Additional VA hospital rec ords wer e conside red by the SSA Appea ls Council and the dist rict court. The rec ords showed that in 2003 Anthony saw numerous doctors and r eporte d that he had not had a se izure since 1997. After a neurolog ical examination of Anthony , Dr. Dudle y conclude d in J une of 2003 that Anthony ’s processing and motor spee d had dec lined, but that his insi g ht and judg ment for e veryday activities was adequate. Dr. Dudley confirme d that Anthony had a c og nitive disorder a nd was depressed, a

nd rec ommended that Anthony attend supportive c ounseling . Other doc tors who saw Anthony during 2003 noted t hat he had problems with his tandem g ait, but ge nera lly conclude d that his condition was stable and satisfactory . I n Fe bruar y of 2003, Anthony

repor ted t h at h e had fa llen down a few steps and inj ured himself, that he ex perie nced “daydrea ms” ever y two months, and had a “f unny fee ling” that made him conf used eve ry

six months. He also re ported mig raine heada ches. Dr. Pec ar, w ho firs t treated plaintiff for his seizure disorder, wr ote a letter in J une of 2004 stating that Anthony

was non-foc al, slightly depre ssed, on anti-seizure medication, and show ed sig ns of de c lin e in h is c og nit ive a bil ity . T he le tte r c on c lud e d that Ant ho ny wa s “ tot a lly

and pe rm ane ntl y disabled” be cause of his seizures. At the administrative hea ring , a vocational expert (VE) testified that Anthony could per form

on ly u n s k i l l e d a n d lo w- str e ss j ob s in vo lvi ngro uti ne and re pe tit ive ta sk s th a t r e qu ir e d li ttl e c on ta c t w ith the public. The V E noted that Anthony could p er fo rm jobs such as a ha nd packe r, laundry

folder, sorter, g rade r, inspector , or che cker . On cr oss-examination, t h e VE co n cede d that if Anthony wer e “off -task” f or more tha

n 15 perc ent of the w ork day , he would have a “ difficult time” wor king. T hereNo. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 6 - wa s n o f ind ingby the AL J, ho we ve r, that An tho ny wo uld be “ of f- ta sk ” to su c h an e xten t th a t he wo uld be un a ble to p e rf

or m th e job s li ste d b y

the VE . A nth on y

him se lf a c kn ow le dg e d th a t he wa s a ble to drive 100 miles a wee k to attend church, ex erc ise with 20 pound weig hts, take mile-long walks, mow the lawn, visit family

and fr iends, socialize at the Amer i ca n L egi on, prepa re me als at home, a

nd manag e daily

living on his own. B. P roce dural h istory An tho ny fi rs t a pp lie d f or DI B in A

pri l of 19 98 , a lle g ingdis a bil ity du e to s e izur e s. Hi s application wa s denied in Mar ch of 1999 and he did not appea l. Anthony filed a se cond application fo r D I B in S e pte mbe r o f 20 02 , all eging dis a bil ity sin c e Marc h o f 1 99 9 th a t w a s p ri mari ly du e to seizures, leg injuries, and border line intellectual functioning

. The SSA denie d his claim initi ally and upon rec onsideration. An AL J aff irmed the de cision of the SSA after finding that Anthony had fa iled to establish disabilit y

for the time pe riod beg inning in Mar ch of 1999 a nd endi n g in September of 2002. Although the AL J found that Anthony was sever ely impaired by a seizure disorder, a prior leg fra cture , and a c og nitive disorde r, he deter mined that Anthony ’s impairments did not qualify under a ny L isting and that Anthony

reta ined the re sidual functional capa ci t y t o perf orm a ra ng e of lig ht work. Re lyingon

the te sti mony

of the VE , th e AL J c on c lud e d tha t des pit e An tho ny ’s ina bil ity to r e tur n to his past job as a truck driver, he could perf orm other jobs, and wa s theref ore not disabled w ithin the

me anin g of

the Soc ia l Se c ur ity

Ac t. T he SSA Ap pe a ls C ou nc il s ub se qu e ntl y

de nie d A nt h o ny ’s re qu e st for r eview, making the AL J ’s ruling the final de cision of the Commissi oner. I n October

of 2005, Anthony

broug ht an ac tion i n the district court to re view the Commi ssioner’s fina l decision. The assigne d mag istrate judge issued a Report and Rec ommendationNo. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 7 - (R&R), f inding that the A L J ’s dec ision was supported by substantial e vidence and rec ommending that the district court a ffirm the Commissioner’s dec ision. Over objections by Anthony , the di strict court adopted the f

indings a nd conclusions of the R& R in April of 2007. This tim ely appea l followed.

II. AN AL YSI S A. Stand ard of review This court exercise s de novo re view of district c ourt dec isions in Social Security case s. Valley v. Comm’r of Soc . Sec

. , 4 2 7 F.3d 388, 390 ( 6th Cir. 2005). We must affirm the Commissi oner’ s conclusions absent a determination that the AL J has failed to apply the correc t leg al standar ds or has

ma de fi nd ing s o f f

a c t un su pp or te d b y su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e in t

he re c or d. 42 U. S.C. § 4 05 (g ); se e als o P r es l a r v . S e c ’ yo f H e a l th & H

u m a n S e rv s. , 1 4 F. 3 d 1 107, 1110 (6th Cir.1994). Even if w e we re inclined to rea ch a c ontrary conclusion of f

act, the Commissioner’s dec ision must be affirmed so long as it is supported by

substantial evidence

. Kinsella v. Schewike r , 708 F.2d 1058, 1059 ( 6th Cir. 1983). Sub sta n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s “ s u c h r e l e v an t e v i d e n c e a s a r e a s o n a b l e m i n d m i g h t a c c e p t a s a d e qua te to support a c o nclusion.” Richardson v. Pe rales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (c itation omit ted). Acc ording ly , we “may not tr y the ca se de novo, nor

resolve c onflicts in evidence , nor dec ide questions of cr edibility .” Garner v. H eck ler , 745 F.2d 383, 387 ( 6th Cir.1984). B. The Social S ecurit y Actand d isabi lity The issue on appea l is whether substantial e vidence supports the AL J ’s deter min at i o n t h at Anthony was not disabled dur ing the rele vant time period. To be entitled to DI B, a claimant mus t be “disabled” wit h in the meaning of Title I Iof the Social Sec urity Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423. SectionNo. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 8 - 423(d)( 1)(A) define s “disability ” as the “inability to en gage in any

substantial ga inful activity by

re a so n o f a

ny me dic a lly

de te rm ina

ble ph y sic a l or men ta l impa ir me nt wh ic h can be e xpe c te d to r e su lt in death or w hich has lasted or can be expected t o l as t fo r a continuous period of not less than 12 months . . . .” The Ac t further provides that [a]n ind ivi du a l sh a ll be de te rm ine d to be un de r a dis a bil ity on ly if his phy sical or mental impairment or i mpairments are of such sever ity that he is not only

unable to d o his previous work but ca nnot, considering his ag e, educ ation, and wor k experience , eng ag e in any o t her kind of substantial ga inful work which e x ists in t he national e conomy . . . . 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)( A). I n ma kin g a de te rm inatio n a s to dis a

bil ity un de r t he a bo ve de fi nition, an A L J is r e qu ir e d to follow a five -step seque ntial analy sis set out in t he SSA’s regulations. See 2 0 C

. F

. R

. § 4 0 4

. 1 5 2 0

. In W alt e rs v . Com mi

ssi on e r o f So c ial Se c ur ity , 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 1997), t his court summarized the fi ve -s te p a

na ly sis a s f

oll ow s: 1. I f cla imant is doing substantial g ainful ac tivity , he is not disabled. 2. I f cla imant is not doi ng substantial ga inful activity , his impairment must be sever e bef

ore he can be found to be disabled. 3. I f claimant is not doing substantial g ainful activity and i s s uffe ring from a se vere impa i rm en t that has lasted or is ex pecte d to last for a c on tin uo us pe ri od of a t le a st tw e lve mon ths , and his imp a ir me nt m e e ts or equa ls a listed impairment, claimant is presumed disa bled without f u rt h e r i n qu i r y. 4. I f c la ima

nt’ s im pa ir men t do es no t pr e ve nt h im f ro m do inghis pa st rele vant work, he is not disabled. 5. Ev e n if c la ima nt’ s im pa ir me nt d oe s p re ve nt h im f

ro m do ing

his pa st rele vant work, if othe r work ex i s t s in the national ec onomy thatNo. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 9 - acc ommodates his residual func tional capa city and vocational f

actor s (ag e, educ ation, skills, etc.), he is not disabled.
Id . a t 529 ( citing 2 0 C.F.R. § 404.1520). Unde r the fir st four steps, the c laimant has the burde n of proof. Y ou ng v . S e c ’y of H e alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 925 F.2d 146, 147-48 (6th Cir. 1990). At step five, howeve r, the burde n of proof shifts to the Comm issioner. Id. C. Anthony’s argume nts 1. Se v e rit

y of impai rment s Anthony ar g u e s th a t t

h e A L J e r

r e d b y f a il in g to d e te r

mi n e th a t a ll o f

A nthony ’s various impairments wer e “se vere ” at step two. In th e S i x t h C i rc u it, the severity deter mination is “a de minimi s hurdle in the disability deter mination process.” Higgs v. Bowen , 880 F.2d 860, 862 ( 6th Cir. 19 98 ). “ [A]n i mpa ir

me nt c an b e c on sid e re d n ot s e ve re on ly if it is a sli g ht a bn or ma lity that mi nim a lly aff ects work ability reg ardle ss of age , education and experience .” Id. The g oal of the test is to “scree n out totally g roundless cla ims.” Fa rri s v. Se c ’y of He alt

h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 773 F.2d 85, 89 ( 6th Cir. 1985). Discer

ning e x actly

which additional impairments Anthony believes should have been f ound to be seve re is fa

r fr om clear , but his brief make s ref ere nce to the a fter- eff

ects of a broken shoulder , his ba lanc e , the e ff

e c ts of a tor

n fle xor te nd on in his le ft ha nd , an d he a da c he s. An tho ny ’s argume nt, howeve r, is misguided. The AL J specific ally found that Anthony ’s seizure dis o rd er, c og nitive disorder, a

nd the af ter-e ffe cts of hi s broken leg qualified as severe impairments. Anthony there fore clea red step two of

th e ana ly sis. This caused the A L J to consider Anthony ’s seve re a nd nonsever e im p ai rm en t s in the rema ining steps of the seque ntial analy sis. The fac t that some of Anthony ’sNo. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 10 - impairments wer e not deeme d to be severe at step two is theref ore le g ally

irrele vant. See M

ariarz v. Se c ’y of H e alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 837 F.2d 240, 244 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding that the fa ilure to find that an impairment wa s sever e wa s harmless er ror whe re othe r impairments we re de emed se vere ). The AL J , there fore , did not commit reversible e rr in this reg ard. 2. Li sti ng o f i mpair ments Anthony next arg ues that the AL J err ed in concluding that his leg injury does not meet or e qual the cr iteria unde r L isting 1.06. He also asser ts that the AL J err ed in f

ailing to e x plain why

his frac ture do e s no t qu a lif

y . L ist ing1. 06 re qu ir e s, in p art , a me dic a lly

a c c e pta ble ima g e sh ow ingthe re is n ot a

so lid un ion of bo ne a t th e fr a c tur e sit e (“ no nunio n” ) an d ev ide nc e that th e c la ima nt c ann ot “ a mbu la te eff ectively .” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, L isting 1.06(A) ,(B ); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, S ubpt. P, App. 1, § 1.00B2b( 1). Contrary to A nthony ’s asser

tions, howe ver, the AL J cited specific rea sons for finding that the fra cture does not qualify

under L isting 1.06. The AL J deter mined that althoug h Anthony ’s phy sician had found a “malunion,” there was no evidenc e in a ny of the imag es of a “no n -u n i o n . ” In addition,

e vid e nc e in t

he reco rd reve als that A nth on y ha s b e e n w a lki ngon

the le g fo r m or e tha

n tw o d e c a de s, does not experience pain at the fra cture site, and can “ambulate effec tively ” ex cept over uneve n g round (i.e., he can w alk without the use of a hand-he ld assistive device ). 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt . P, App. 1, § 1.00B2b( 1). Substantial evidenc e therefor e supports the AL J ’s finding that Anthony ’s leginjury does not meet the c riteria f or L isting 1.06. Anthony also contends that the A L J should have found that his seizure disorder qualifies under L ist ing s 11 .0 2 and 11 .0 3, wh ic h a dd re ss c on vu lsi ve and no nc on vu lsi ve e pil e ps y . Th is argument isNo. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 11 - waived, how ever , beca

use he failed to develop the same on a ppeal. See U

nited States v. Elder , 90 F.3d 1100, 1118 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that “issues adver ted to in a perf unctory manner , unacc ompanied by some eff

ort at deve loped ar g umentation, are deeme d waived” ). B ut even if the argument was not

wa i v ed , t h e A L J ’s d et er m i n at i o nt h at An t h o n y ’s s ei z u re d i s o rd er d o es n o t m ee t t h e cr i t er i a o f Lis t i n gs 11.02 and 11.03 is suppor

ted by substantial e vidence . The L isting re quires that the c laimant experience

c on vu lsi ve se izur e s mo re tha n o nc e a mon th or no nc on vu lsi ve se izur e s mor e tha n onc e a we e k, de sp ite treatment. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. Anthony ’s m edica l rec ords, i n contra st, ref lect the fact that he has g one y ear s without experiencing a seiz ure. As such, t he AL J did not err in c oncluding that Anthony ’s seizure disorder is under contr ol and does not qualify under the L istings. 3. ALJ’s weighin g of the ev idence Ant h o n y fu rt her c ontends that the AL J err ed in deter mining that Anthony

has the re sidual functional c apac ity

to perfor m a ra ng e of light work. Specifica lly , he argues that the AL J failed to g ive pr op er wei ght to ( 1) the op ini on of his tr e a tin g ph y sic ian, and (2 ) h is o wn

te sti mony

and that of his wi tne sse s. For

the re ason s set forth be low, we c onclude that the A L J rea sonably resolved the conflicting medical a

nd testimonial evidence

. a. Treating physician Anthony argues that the AL J err ed in fa iling to (1) a cknowledg e that Dr . Pecar was the tre ating phy sician, (2) acc ord proper defe renc e to D r. Pecar ’s opinion, a nd (3) provide “g ood rea so n s ” f or discounting the opinion. Under the tre ating -phy sician rule , the opinions of treating phy sicians ar e g ener ally acc orded g reater we ight th an the opinions of other phy sicians. Se e Kir k v . S e c ’y of H e alt h & Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 667 F.2d 524, 536 ( 6th Cir. 1981) . When determining the par ticular we ight to g iveNo. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 12 - a medica l source, a

n AL J should consider (1) the leng th of the treating r elationship, (2) the nature a nd

e xten t of the re la tio ns hip , inc lud ing any sp e c ia lize d kno wl e dg e the so ur c e may have , (3) the e xten t to wh ic h the op ini on is su

pp or te d by me dic a l e vid e nc e , inc lud ing me dic a l sig ns and la bo rator y fi nd ing s, (4) the e x tent to w hich the opinion is consistent with the rec ord as a whole, and ( 5) whe ther the opinion is from a spec ialist on iss ues re lating to his or he r spec ialty

. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)( 1)-( 6). An AL J ’s dec ision to deny benef its “must contain specific r easons f or the we ight g iven to the tr e a tin g so ur c e ’s me dic a l op ini on , s up po rt e d b y the e vid e nc e in t he c a se re c or d, and

mus t be su ff

ic ie ntl y specific to make cle ar to a ny subs equent r eviewe rs the we ight the a djudicator g ave to the tr eating

source ’s medica l opinion and the rea sons for that weig ht.” W ilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

. , 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004) (c iting Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (1996)) . Although the AL J must give “ g ood rea sons” for disc ounting the w eig ht give n a tre ating source’s opinion, id. , the AL J “is not bound by the treating phy sician’s opinions,” and such opinions will “re ceive g reat weig ht only if they are supported by sufficie nt clinical findings and are consistent with the evidenc e.” Bo gle v. Sullivan , 99 8 F .2 d 34 2, 34 7- 48 (6 th Cir . 1 99 3) ; W alters v. Comm’r of

Soc. Sec

. , 127 F.3d 525, 529- 31 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that a treating phy sician’s re levant opinion will not be give n controlling weig ht

un le ss i t is “ we ll

- s u

p po rt e d b y

me dic a lly

a c c e pta ble c lin ic a l and

la bo rator y dia g no sti c te c hn iqu e s” ); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)( 1)-( 6). Contrary to Anthony ’s asser

tion, the A L J acknow ledg ed Dr. Pecar and g ave g ood rea sons for discounting the doctor’s opinion. The AL J first found that Dr. Pecar ’s opinion was not supported by objective f

indings or tr eatment notes. D r. Peca r’s m ed i ca l rec ords do not provide e vidence that Anthony ’s seizures we re problematic between 1999 and 2002, the t ime period relevant to this case. TheNo. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 13 - de te rm inatio n b y

Dr . Pe c ar t

hat A nth on y wa s tot a lly dis a ble d wa s ma de in Jun e of 20 04 . B ut t

he la st time that Anthony

had see n Dr. Pec ar pr ior to J une of 2004 was in 1998. There is no evidence that Dr. Pecar treated Anthony betwee n 1999 and 2002. The AL J there fore rea sonably discounted Dr. Pec ar’ s opinion as to Anthony ’s disability during the cr itical period of time. I n addition, the AL J found that Dr. Pec ar’ s conclusion that Anthony could not work wa s not

su pp or te d b y de ta ile d c lin ic a l f

ind ing s. Whe re a

tr e a tin g do c tor

make s b ro a d “ c on c lus or

y fo rm ulatio ns , reg ardingthe ultimate issue which must be dec ided b y t h e S ecretar y , [t hose finding s] are not deter minative of the question of whether or not a n individual is under

a disability .” Kir

k , 667 F.2d at 53 8; see also King v. He ckle r , 742 F.2d 968, 973 (6th Cir. 1984) (finding as a valid rea son not to acce pt the opinion of a tre ating phy sician t h e fa ct t h at t h e opinion was not supported by detailed c linical or diag nostic evidenc e). The AL J also g ave D r. Pecar ’s opinion limi ted weight beca use it was inconsistent with the substantial w eig ht of the medical evidenc e in the rec ord. This me dical evidenc e b el i es An t h o ny ’s

re lia nc e on the a lle g e d s e ve ri ty

of his se izur e s, the tor

n f le xor t e nd on

in h is le ft ha

nd , his pr ob le ms w ith dizzi ne ss, ba lanc e , a

nd coo rdi nati on , th e a ft e r- e ff e c ts o f h is b ro ke n s ho uld e r a nd le g fr a c tur e , h is episodes of co n fu s i o n and irritability , and his brain atrophy . I n particula r, the AL J relied on the VA ho s p i t al repor

ts betwee n 1999 to 2002, which consistently state that Anthony

had not had a

serious seizure since 1997, that his seiz ure disorde r wa s stable and c ontrolled by medication, and that his other

a ilm e nts we re no t disa

bli ng . Al tho ug h th e re is e vid e nc e ind ic a tin g tha t A nth on y mig ht h a ve ha d s ome night se izures, that he experienc ed “spe lls,” and that his cognitive ca pacity diminis hed duringtheNo. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 14 - rele vant time period, the w eig ht of the medical evidenc e sug g ests that Anthony ’s seizures we re unde r control and that his other ailments did not prevent him from eng ag ing in g ainful ac tivity

. The AL J also consider ed the f ull medical re cord a

nd suffici en tly

acc ommodated all of An tho ny ’s lim itatio ns in d e te rm ini nghis re sid ua l f un c tio na l c a

pa c ity . B e c a

us e the VAho sp ita l r e po rt s undermine D r. Peca

r’s opini on that Anthony could not work in any capa city , and because Dr. Pec ar w as the only phy sician to sug g est that Anthony was “totally disabled,” the AL J provided suff icient re asons for discounting Dr. Pec ar’ s testimony and dete rmining that, bas ed o n t h e medical rec ord as a whole, Anthony reta ined the re sidual functional ca pacity to perfor m a limited rang e of lig ht work. b. The

ALJ ’s c re dib ili

ty e v alu ations Anthony further contends that the AL J err ed in f inding that his te stimony , as well as the ve rbal and wr itten testimony

of his sister, niece , and for mer e mploy er, w as not ful l y cr ed i b l e. Where the

u n c o n t r o v e rt e d m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e i nt h e r e c o r d i s e n t i r e l y consistent w i t h a w i t n e s s ’ s t e s t i m o n y , anA LJ may not disreg ard that evidenc e by claiming that it is i ncre dible. Harris ex rel Harris v. H eck ler , 756 F

. 2 d 4 3 1 , 4 3 6 ( 6 th Ci r . 1 9 8 5 )

. A n A L J fac ed with conflicting me dic a l e vid e nc e , h ow e ve r, mus t

nece ssarily

make c redibility

deter minations. King , 742 F.2d at 974. Where ther e ar e conf licts reg arding the evidenc e, an A L J ’s finding s of cr edibility are entitled to gr eat de fer ence . Id. at 974-75. I n the pre s ent case, the c onflicting evidenc e in the re cord r equire d the AL J to evaluate the

cre dibilit y

of Anthony

and his witnesses. The AL J found t hat the medica l rec ord contra dicted the witnesses’ testimony

that Anthony

was totally

disabled. He pointed out that althoug h the VA hospital

re c or ds re fl e c t th a t A nth on y ha d tr ou ble fo c us ingand

sta y ing on ta sk , th e y

a lso ma de c le ar t

hat hi s seizures wer e lar g ely

under c ontrol and that he w as able to perfor m most t asks with additional time.No. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 15 - The AL J also found that Anthony ’s lifesty l e an d d emea nor did not “match his alleg ations of disability .” He noted t hat although Anthony claimed to be tot ally disabled, he continued to drive more than 100 miles to church e ach w eek, lift dumbbells, socialize, walk long distances, a nd live on his own. The AL J commented that this “doe s not create the imag e of a person inca

pable of work.” Be cause the AL J con sid e re d th e e vid e nc e in t he re c or d a

nd pr ov ide d s pe c if

ic re a so ns fo r h is c re dib ili ty fi nd ing s, his decision i s entitled to g reat defe renc e and is supported by substantial evidence

. See King , 742 F.2d at 97 4; Buxton v. H

alter , 2 46 F .3 d 7 62 , 7 73 (6 th C ir . 2 00 1) (h old ingthat an A L J ’s cr e dib ili ty deter minations must be upheld so long as they are in the zone of rea sonable c hoices). 5. ALJ ’s de te rminat ion tha t Ant

hony c oul d wo rk i n t h en a t i o n a l e c o n o my The AL J deter

mined that Anthony

lacke d the re sidual f

u n c ti o n a l capa city

to perfor m his past work as a truc k driver. A t step five of the analy sis, however , the AL J found that An t h o n y possessed the

re sid ua l f un c tio na l c a

pa c ity to p e rf orm othe r j ob s in

the natio na l e c on omy . A nth on y argue s th a t th is finding was in er

ror. Specifica lly , he asserts that the AL J err ed by (1) f ailing to c redit the portions of the VE’s testimony

that wer e fa

vorable to him, and (2) improper ly applying the medical- vo cational g uidelines. I n response , the Co m m i s s ioner a rg ues that the AL J considere d and ac commodated a ll of Anthony ’s limitations in setting his re sidual functio n a l c a p a c it y , tr e a te d th e me d ic a l- vocational guidelines as advisory , and properly relied upon the t estimony of the VE in de termining that Anthony could per form a suff icient number of

jobs in the national economy during the re levant time per iod. Th e Com m i s s i o n e r c ar

r i e s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t a c l a i m an t w h o c an n o t p e r f o r m h i s pa st work has the residual f

unctional ca

pacity to perfor m other work in the national economy

. Y oung v. Sec ’y of H e alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 925 F.2d 146, 148 (6th Cir. 1990) . To ca rry this burden, the Commissi onerNo. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 16 - may rely either on the testimony

of a V E who eva luates a c laimant’s abili ty to perf orm work in l ight of the claimant’s limit ations or the SSA’s medical- vocational guidelines. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. InA n t h o n y ’ s c a s e , t h e A LJ d i d n o te r r i na p p l y i n g t h e m e d i c a l

- v o c a t i o n a l gu i d e l i n e s . T h e A LJ de te rm ine d th a t A nth on y

ha d b oth e xer tio na l and no ne xer tio na l im pa ir me nts that e ro de d h is abi lity to perf orm the full ra

ng e of lig ht work. Where a claimant h a s n onexertional impairments, the Commis sioner must tre at the medical- vocational g uidelines as only a framework for decisionmaking and must rely on other e vidence to car

ry the burde n of showing that there are a sig nificant number of j obs in the national economy that a cla imant can pe rfor m. Bu rto n v . S

e c ’y of H e alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 8 93 F .2 d 8 21 , 8 22 (6 th Cir. 1990) (holding t hat i f a claimant suffers from a nonexertional impairment, the Commissioner may

us e the g ri d a s a

fr a me wo rk

fo r d e c isi on , b ut m

us t r e ly on oth e r ev ide nc e to c arr y his burd e n) ; 20 C.F .R. § 404.1567

. Her e, the AL J specific ally stated that, due to the nature of A nthony ’s limitations , he wa s applying the g uidelines only as a fra mework. He then relied on the testimony of the VE to c onclude that Anthony could per form a sig nificant number of jobs in the national ec onomy . The Commissioner may

car ry his bur den of proof by rely ing on a VE’s testimony if the testimony is “ g ive n in

re sp on se to a hy

po the tic a l qu e sti on that a c c ur a te ly de sc ri be s the pla int if f in a ll s ig nif

ic a nt, rele vant re spects.” Felisky v . Bowen , 3 5 F

. 3 d 1 0 2 7 , 1 0 3 6 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 9 4 )

. A t t h e h e ar i n g , t h e A LJ

acc urate ly

listed Anthony ’s traits and r esidual func tional c apac ity and asked the VE what jobs Anthony could per form. The VE replied that an indi vidual with Anthony ’s l imitations could per form jobs such as hand pa cker , laundry

folder, sor

ter, g rade r, inspector , or che cker

. I n r e sp on se to a

n a lte re d hy p o the tic a l po se d b y

An tho ny ’s a tto rn e y , h ow e ve r, the VE te sti fi e d th a t, if a hy pothetical individual wer e “of f-task” for more than 15 perc ent of the w ork day , he would have “aNo. 07-3344

An tho ny v . Co mm So c ial

Se c ur ity

- 17 - diff ic ult tim e ” wo rk ing . B ut t

he VE ’s re sp on se to t

he a lte re d h y

po the tic a l pr ov ide s n o b a sis fo r u s to

overr ule t h e A L J’ s d e te r

mi n a ti o nth a t A n th o n y

w a s qu a li f

ie d f o r a s ig n if ic an t n u mb e r o f jo b s in the national ec onomy . See F

elisky , 3 5 F

. 3 d

a t1 0 3 5 ( h o l d i n g t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u rt m ay n o t o v e r r u l e a nA LJ simply beca use that cour

t might have rea ched a

differ ent conc lusion based on the fa cts). B eca use the VE’s testimony i n re s p onse to the valid hy pothetical question posed by the AL J was supporte d by substantial evidence , the AL J did not err in re ly ing on the VE’s opinion. 6. Antho ny ’s e ar

lie r re que st f or re mand Anthony argued bef

ore the district court that his case should be remanded to consider additional evidenc e fr om the VA hospital rec ords. The district c ourt deni ed h is request, a nd Anthony

does not dispute that decision her e. Consequently , Anthony has wa ived this arg ument. Se e Sp irk o v . M itc he ll , 368 F.3d 603, 612 ( 6th Cir. 1994) (holding that the failure to develop an a rg ument constitutes a waive r).

III . C ON CL USI ON The a dministrative r ecor d cont ai n s s u b s t an t i al ev i d en ce t o s u

p p o rt t h e C ommissi oner’ s conclusion that Anthony

is not disabled w ithin the meaning of the Social Sec urity Act. We there fore AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.