FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 8, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 26 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 05 99 -KD-B LATASHAR REYNOLD S, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l 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 l Defen da nt -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 Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 8, 2 01 2) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, HULL andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Lata sh ar Re yno ld s ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s o rd er af firm in g t he Co m m is si on er o f th e So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on ’s (“ th e Co m m is si on er”) de ni al of d is ab il ity

in su ran ce b en efi ts (“ DIB”) an d s up pl em en ta l s ecu rit y in co m e (“ SSI” ), 42 U.S.C. §§ 40 5( g) , 13 83 (c)( 3) . Reyno ld s ar gu es on ap pe al th atth e adm in is tra ti ve law ju dg e (“ ALJ”) ap pl ie d t he wron g s ev eri ty stan dardinfin di ng th athe r sc ol io si s an d d ep res si on were n otsev ere i m pa irments . Libe ral ly co ns tru in g h er pr o s e bri ef, Reyno ld s al so arg ue s tha t the ALJ erre d i n fa il in g t o rem an d h er ca se to th e Co m m is si on er u nd er the si xt h s en te nc e o f 42 U.S.C. § 40 5( g) ba se d o n n ew ev id en ce fi rs t p res en te d t o t he di st ric t co urt. I. W e rev ie w a Co m

m is si on er’s d eci si onto de te rm in e whe th er “ itis supp orte d by sub st an ti al ev id en ce an d b as edon th e p ro pe r le ga l s tand ard s.” Cr aw fo rd v. Co mm’r o f S oc . Sec
. , 36 3 F .3d11 55 , 11 58 (11 thCir . 20 04 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . “ Subs tant ia l ev id en ce i s m or e th ana sc in ti ll a an d i s s uc h re le va nt 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 .” Id
. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ W e m ay no t d eci de fact s an ew, rewei ghth e ev id en ce, o r subs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t fo r th atof t he Co m m is si on er.” Dyer

v. Barnh ar t , 39 5 F .3d12 06 , 12 10 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . Evenif the ev id en ce p rep on de rat es 2ag ai ns t the Co m m is si on er’s fac tu al fin di ng s, we m us t af firm if s ub st an ti al ev id en ce s up po rts th e d eci si on . Cr aw fo rd , 36 3 F .3dat 1 15 8- 59 . W e rev ie w th e de ci si on of t he ALJ as th e Co m m is si on er’s fi na l d eci si on when th e ALJ d en ie s be ne fit s an d t he App eal s C ou nc il de ni es rev ie w of the ALJ’s de ci si on . Dough tyv. Apf el , 24 5 F .3d12 74 , 12 78 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). The So ci al Secu rit y

Reg ul at io ns ou tl in e a fi ve -s te p p ro ces s u se d t o de te rm in e whe th er a cl ai m an t i s d is ab le d. 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .15 20 (a)( 4) . Und er the fir stst ep , th e cl ai m an t h as th e b ur de n t o s ho w th athe is no t cu rren tl y en ga ge d i n subs tant ia l g ai nf

ul act iv ity . Id
. § 4 04 .15 20 (a)( 4) (i) . Next , th e cl ai m an t m us t s ho w th athe ha s a s ev ere i m

pa irment. Id
. § 4 04 .15 20 (a)( 4) (ii ). He th enm us t at te m ptto sh ow tha t the im

pa irment m eet s o r equa ls th e cri te riaco nt ai ne d i n o ne of t he Lis ti ng s o f Im

pa irments . Id
. § 4 04 .15 20 (a)( 4) (ii i). If th e cl ai m an t cann otm eetor equa l the cri te ria , he m

us t s ho w th athe ha s an im pa irment wh ic h p rev en ts hi m fro m pe rfo rm in g h is pa strel ev an t wo rk . Id
. § 4 04 .15 20 (a)( 4) (ii i) a nd(iv ). Once a cl ai m an t es tabl is he s tha t h e can no t p erfo rm hi s p as t re le va ntworkdu e to so m e se ve re i m pa irment, the bu rd ensh ift s t o t he Co m m is si on er t o s ho w th atsi gn ifi can t nu m be rs of jo bs ex is t i n t he na ti on al eco no m y whi chth e cl ai m an t ca n p erfo rm . Id
. § 4 04 .15 20 (a)( 4) (v ).

3An i m pa irment i s “ se ve re” i f it“ si gn ifi can tl y li m it s [a ] cl ai m an t’s p hysic al orm en ta l ab il ity

to do ba si c work a ct iv it ie s.” Cray to n v . Cal la ha n , 12 0 F .3d 12 17 , 12 19 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ); 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .15 20 (c). “ Bas ic workact iv it ie s” in cl ud e: “ [p ]hy si cal fun ct io ns su chas wa lk in g, s tand in g, s it ti ng , li fti ng , pu ll in g, reac hi ng , carrying or h an dl in g; [c]apa ci ti es forsee in g, h eari ng an d s pe ak in g; [u ]nde rs tand in g, ca rry in g o utan d re m em be rin g s im

pl e in st ru ct io ns ; [u ]se of jud gm en t; [r]esp on di ng ap pr op ria te ly to s up erv is io n, co worke rs an d u su al work si tu at io ns ; an d [d ]eali ng with c ha ng es ina ro ut in e work s et ti ng .” 20 C.F.R. § 4 04 .15 21 (b ). St ep two is a th res ho ld in qu iry. It al lo ws on ly cl ai m s ba se d on th e m os t tri vi al im pa irments to be reject ed . The cl ai m an t’s bu rd en at st ep two is m il d. An im

pa irmen t i s n ot se ve re on ly if th e ab no rm al ity is so sl ig ht a n d i t s effe ct so m in im al th at it wou ld cl earl y no t be ex pe ct ed t o i n t e r f e r e with th e in di vi du al ’s ab il ity to work, irr es pe ct iv e of ag e, educ at io n o r work e xp eri en ce. McDa ni el

v. Bowe n , 80 0 F .2d10 26 , 10 31 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). The So ci al Secu rit y

reg ul at io ns requi re an ad di ti on al “ sp eci al tec hn ique ” whe n e va lu at in g the sev eri ty of m en ta l i m pa irments , whi chrequi res th e ALJ t o co ns id er fo urfun ct io na l ar eas : ac ti vi ti es of d ai ly liv in g; so ci al fun ct io ni ng ; co nc en tra ti on , per si st en ce, o r pa ce; an d e pi so de s o f de co m pe ns at io n. 2 0 C .F.R. § 40 4.1 52 0a (a)( 1) , (c)(3 )-(4 ). Und er thi s an al y si s,

4[i]f we rat e th e de gr ee of yo u r li m it at io n in th e fir st th ree func ti on al

area s as “ no ne ” or “ mil d” an d “ no ne ” in th e fo urth area , we wil l ge ne ral ly co nc lu de th at y ou r im pa irment( s) is no t se ve re, un le ss th e ev id en ce ot he rwis e in di cat es th at th ere is m or e th an a m in im al li m it at io n in y ou r ab il ity

to do ba si c work a ct iv it ie s. Id
. § 40 4.1 52 0a (d )(1 ). Furth er, i n t he co nt ex t o f de te rm in in g acla im an t’s RF C whe n the cla im an t al le ge s m en ta l i m pa irment, we h av e h el d t ha t the ALJ m us t

“ co m pl et e a [Ps y ch ia tri c Rev ie w Tech ni qu e Fo rm (“ PRTF” ) ] an d app en d i t t o t he de ci si on , or i nc or

po rat e it s m od e o f an al y si s i nt o h is fin di ng s an d c on cl us io ns . Fai lu re t o d o s o re qu ire s re m an d.” Moo re v. Barnh ar t , 40 5 F .3d12 08 , 12 14 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ); se e 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 52 0a (e)( 2) . Reynol ds pre se nt edno m ed ic al ev id en ce d oc um en ti ng he r di ag no si s o r tre atm en t fo r sc ol io si s o r th e fu nc ti on al li m it at io ns th atth e co nd it io n c au se d h er. Thu s, s he fai le d t o s ho w th athe r sc ol io si s co ul d b e ex pe ct edto in te rfer e wit h h er ab il ity to work . Furt he rm or e, th e o nl y m ed ic al ev id en ce s up po rti ng he r cl ai m of de pr es si on was o ne do ct or ’s rep ort wh ic h d ia gn os edhe r with d ep res si on th at co ul d b e ex pe ct edto res po ndfav or ab ly to treat m en t. Sh e p ro vi de d n o t es ti m on y reg ard in g h er d ep res si on or i ts fun ct io na l l im it at io ns . W e n ot e, to o, tha t the ALJ pr op erl y an al yzedth e al le ge d d ep res si on us in g the “ sp eci al tec hn ique ” requi redby th e reg ul at io ns an d c irc ui t ca se law. Becau se subs tant ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e

5ALJ’s fi nd in g t ha t Re yno ld s’s s co li os is an d d ep res si onwere n otsev ere

im pa irments , we affi rm

as t o t hi s i ss ue . II. A di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re m an d b as edon ne w evi de nc e is rev ie wed de no vo . Vega v . Comm’r of So c. Se c. , 26 5 F .3d12 14 , 12 18 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). The s ix th sen te nc e o f 42 U.S.C. § 4 05 (g ) pr ov id es th ata rev ie win g c ou rt m ay rem an d aSo ci al Secu rit y cas e to th e ag en cy

forco ns id erat io n o f ne w ev id en ce tha t p rev io us ly w as un av ai labl e. 42 U.S.C. § 4 05 (g ). To d em on st rat e th ata rem an d i s n eed edun de r se nt en ce s ix , “ th e cl ai m an t m us t es tabl is h t ha t: (1 ) th ere i s n ew, no nc um

ul at iv e ev id en ce; (2) th e ev id en ce i s ‘m at eri al ,’ th atis , rel ev an t an d p ro ba ti ve so th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le po ss ib il ity th atitwou ldch an ge th e adm in is tra ti ve res ul t; an d (3 ) th ere i s g oo d c au se forth e fai lu re t o s ub m itth e ev id en ce atth e adm in is tra ti ve lev el .” Ca ulde r v. Bo wen , 79 1 F .2d87 2, 8 77 (11 th Ci r. 19 86 ). The no n- cum

ul at iv e requi rem en t i s s at is fie d b y th e p ro du ct io n o f ne w ev id en ce wh enno si m il ar ev id en ce i s co nt ai ne d i n t he admin is tra ti ve reco rd . Ca nn on v. Bowe n , 85 8 F .2d15 41 , 15 46 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). For ev id en ce t o b e n ew an d n on cu m

ul at iv e, itm

us t re la te to th e ti m e p eri odon or b efo re the date of the ALJ’s d eci si on . Se e W

il so n v . Apf

el , 17 9 F .3d12 76 , 12 78 –7 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) 6(h ol di ng th ata do ct or ’s op in io n o ne y ear a fte r th e ALJ d eci si on was n otpro ba ti ve

as to an y is su e o n app eal ). By

co nt ras t, ev id en ce o f a co nd it io n tha t ex is te d p rio r to th e ALJ h eari ng , bu t was no t d is co ve redun ti l af te r th e ALJ h eari ng , is ne w and no nc um ul at iv e. Se e Vega , 26 5 F .3dat 1 21 8- 19 (ho ld in g t ha t re m an d was warrant edbe cau se a do ct ordi sc ov eredan d s ur gi cal ly corre ct eda he rn ia te d d is k aft er the ALJ’s de ci si on ); se e a ls o Hyde v. Bow en , 82 3 F .2d45 6, 4 59 & n .4 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 87 ) (h ol di ng th atth e n ew ev id en ce p ro vi de d a n o bjec ti ve m ed ic al ex pl an at io n fo r Hy de ’s pre vi ou sl y un ex pl ai ne d c om

pl ai nt s o f pa in ). Reynol ds ’s m ed ic al reco rd s re ga rd in g apre gn an cy an d m is carr ia ge are n ot pr ob at iv e b ecau se th ey

do no t co nt ai n a ny inf

orm at io n re la ti ng to he r al le ge d im pa irments an d d o n otrel at e to th e ti m e p eri odon or b efo re the ALJ’s de ci si on . Bec au se Reynol ds ’s othe r ne w evi de nc e was li ke wis e n otm at eri al , andsh e d idno t sh ow g oo d c au se forfai li ng to pre se ntitdurin g t he adm in is tra ti ve pro ceed in gs , we co nc lu de th atth e ev id en ce d idno t warran t re m an d u nd er the si xth s en te nc e o f § 4 05 (g ). Fo r th e ab ov e-s ta te d re as on s, we af firm th e Co m m is si on er’s d en ia l o f DIB an d S SI b en efi ts . AFFIRMED.

7