[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 59 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 0- cv -0 04 27 -RV-C JK GLENDA W . W EEKLE Y, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us COMM ISSI ONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 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 North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st13 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, W ILSON, andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-10594 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 1 of 9Glen daW eek le y ap pe al s the de ni al of h er ap pl ic at io n fo r a p eri odof di sabi li ty ins ur an ce b en efi ts by the Co m m is si on er o f th e So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on (“ Co m

m is si on er”) . Se e 42 U.S.C. § 4 05 (g ). Upo n re vi ew of th e reco rdan d t he bri efs , we affi rm . 1 I. The Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e (“ ALJ”) fou ndth atth ro ug h t he da te las t in su red , W eek le y

po ss es se d t he fol lo win g s ev ere i m pa irments : s ta tu s p os t ce rv ic al di sk ect omy

an d fu si on , st atus po stre-d o c erv ic al di sk ect omy an d fu si on with in st ru m en ta ti on , cerv ic al de ge ne rat iv e d is c d is eas e, an d m us cl e te ns io n h ead ach es . Bu t the ALJ fo un d t ha t n on e o f W eek le y ’s im pa irments or c om

bi na ti on of im pa irments m etor m ed ic al ly equ al edon e o f th e im pa irments li st edin20 C.F.R. Part40 4, Subp artP, App en di x 1 . After r ev ie win g t he reco rdth e ALJ co nc lu de d th atW eek le y ’s pai n andfun ct io na l l im it at io ns were n otas s ig ni fic an t as sh e al le ge d. Th e ALJ b el ie ve d tha t Weekl ey ret ai ne d t he ph y si cal res idua l fu nc ti on al cap aci ty to p erfo rm

at l eas t atth e se de nt ary st ren gt h o r ex ert io na l l ev el , in fu nc ti on -b y -fu nc ti on ph y si cal term s, wi thcert ai n e xe rti on al an d p os tu ral We do not address Weekle y ’s argument reg ardingthe support for the AL J ’s 1 deter mination of residual func tional capa city beca use it was not ra ised in the district court. See Stewart v. Dept. of Health and Human Se rvs. , 26 F.3d 115, 115–16 ( 11th Cir. 1994) (“As a g ener al principle, this cour t will not address an a

rgument that has not bee n raised in the district court.” ). 2

Case: 12-10594 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 2 of 9res tri ct io ns ass oc ia te d wi th th e le ve l o f ex ert io n. Acco rd in g t o the ALJ,

W eek le y ’s pas t re le va ntworkas alo anoff ic er an d b an k b ran chm an ag er d idno t requi re the pe rfo rm an ce o f work- rel at edact iv it ie s p recl ud edby her re si du al fu nc ti on al cap aci ty. Ther efo re, the ALJ co nc lu de d t ha t Weekl ey was n otdi sabl ed atan y ti m e fro m

Jan uary 1, 1 99 7, the am en de d a ll eg eddi sabi li ty ons etda te , th ro ug h Dec em

be r 31 , 20 02 , th e d at e la stin su red . II. W eek le y fir starg ue s tha t the ALJ co m m it te d re ve rs ib le erro r by dis co un ti ng th e o pi ni on of Dr. R

ub enTimm on s, wh o t reat edhe r on35 di ffer en t o ccas io ns an d de te rm in edth atdu e to he r co nd it io n s he eit he r was li m it edto a sub- se de nt ary le ve l o f act iv it y

or wa s u ne m

pl oyabl e. W e rev ie w a So ci al Secu rit y cas e to de te rm in e whe th er the Co m mis si on er’s de ci si on is supp orte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce an d wh ethe r th e co rrec t l eg al st an da rd s wer e ap pl ie d. W in sc he l v. Co mm’r o

f S oc . Sec . , 63 1 F .3d11 76 , 11 78 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . “ Subs ta nt 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 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 .” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . If th e ALJ’s fi nd in g i s supp orte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, we m us t d efer to itev enif t he ev id en ce pr ep on de rat es ag ai ns t the fin di ng . Cr aw fo rd v. Co mm’r o

f S oc . Sec . , 36 3 F .3d 3 Case: 12-10594 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 3 of 911 55 , 11 58 –5 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (pe r cu ria m). “ W e m ay no t d eci de th e fac ts 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 t he Co m m is si on er.” W in sc he l , 63 1 F .3dat 1 17 8 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . On th e o th er h an d, re ve rs al is warran te d wh ere the ALJ fai ls eit he r to ap pl y th e co rrec t la w or t o p ro vi de us with asu ffi ci en t b as is forde te rm in in g t ha t the pro pe r le ga l an al y si s h as be enco nduc te d. Kee to n v . Dep’ t o f Hea lth & Huma n Servs . , 21 F.3d 10 64 , 10 66 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). The ALJ m

us t g iv e a treat in g p hysic ia n’s o pi ni on“ subs ta nt ia l o r co ns id erab le weig ht ” unl es s the re i s g oo d c au se to di sr eg ardth e o pi ni on . W in sc he l , 63 1 F .3dat 1 17 9. “ Goo d c au se ex is ts when th e: (1) tre at in g p hysic ia n’s op in io n was no t b ol st eredby the ev id en ce; (2) ev id en ce s up po rte d aco ntrary fin di ng ; o r (3 ) tr eat in g p hysic ia n’s o pi ni onwas c on cl us ory or i nc on si st en t wi th th e do ct or ’s ownm ed ic al reco rd s.” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The ALJ m us t cl earl y

art ic ul at e h is reas on s fo r di sr eg ard in g atre at in g p hysic ian’s o pi ni on . Id. ; 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .15 27 (c)( 2) . Whe n atre at in g p hysic ian’s o pi ni on do es no t warra ntco nt ro ll in g wei gh t, the ALJ m us t n ev erthe le ss weig h t he m ed ic al op in io n ba se d o n t he : (1 ) le ng th of t he tre atm en t re la ti on sh ip an d t he freque nc y of ex am in at io n; (2) th e n atur e an d e xt en t o f th e tr eat m en t re la ti on sh ip ; (3 ) th e m ed ic al ev id en ce an d e xp lana ti on supp orti ng th e o pi ni on ; (4 ) co ns is te nc y with t he 4 Case: 12-10594 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 4 of 9reco rdas awho le ; (5 ) sp eci al iz at io n i n t he pe rti ne ntm ed ic al is su es ; an d (6 ) ot he r

fact or s tha t t en d t o s up po rt o r co nt rad ic t the op in io n. 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .15 27 (c). Cert ai n m at te rs are re se rv edto th e ag en cy ’s con si de rat io n. 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .15 27 (d ). Forex am pl e, th e ag en cy

is res po ns ib le forde te rm in in g wh ethe r a cl ai m an t m eet s the st atut ory de fin it io n o f di sabi li ty, an d ast at em en t b y a m ed ic al so ur ce tha t a c la im an t i s “ di sabl ed ” o r “un ab le to work ” d oe s n otm ean th atth e ag en cy m us t d et erm in e a cl ai m an t t o b e d is ab le d. Id. In i ns ta nc es inwhi cha tre at in g p hysic ia n m ak es su chco nc lu so ry st at em en ts , th e ALJ m ay affo rdth em su chweig htas i s s up po rte d b y th e cl in ic al or l ab or at ory fin di ng s an d o th er co ns is te ntev id en ce o f th e cl ai m an t’s i m pa irments . W

he el er v. Heckl er , 78 4 F .2d 10 73 , 10 75 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) (p er cu ria m). W he n t he ALJ h as art ic ul at edsp eci fic reas on s fo r fai li ng to gi ve th e o pi ni on of atre at in g p hysic ia n c on tro ll in g wei gh t, an d t ho se reas on s ar e supp orte d b y subs tant ia l ev id en ce, the re i s n o re ve rs ib le erro r. Moo re v. Barnh ar t , 40 5 F .3d12 08 , 12 12 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m). Here, the ALJ’s de ci si on to affo rdm in im al ev id en ti ary weig htto Dr. Timm on s’s o pi ni on s re ga rd in g Week le y ’s sym pt om s an d fu nc ti on al li m it at io ns is supp orte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce tha t Weekl ey was n otcred ib le an d b y

fin di ng s reco rd edby W eek le y ’s tre at in g n eu ro su rg eo n. Th ere i s ev id en ce tha t Weekl ey ex ag ge rat edth e se ve rit y

of h er s ym

pt om s wh ensh e was un de r th e car e o f Dr. 5 Case: 12-10594 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 5 of 9Timm on s. In19 98 durin g afun ct io na l capa ci ty eval ua ti on , th e ex am in er n ot ed

th atW eek le y

ex ert edsub- m ax im al effo rt, e xh ib it edsym pt om m ag ni fic at io n be ha vi or s, an d re po rte d d is pr op orti on at e p ai n s cal e rat in gs th atwere n otin acco rd an ce wi th he r be ha vi or . A fun ct io na l capa ci ty eval ua ti on in20 00 als o n ot ed sub- m ax im al effo rt. Dr. Tim m on s’s o pi ni on was i nf

orm edby W eek le y ’s pe rs is te nt , subjec ti ve co m pl ai nt s o f pa in , bu t the fun ct io na l capa ci ty eval ua ti on s rai se co nc ern s ab ou t Weekl ey ’s cred ib il it y an d the rel iabi li ty of Dr. Tim m on s’s op in io n. Weekl ey ’s cred ib il it y is als o u nd erm in edby evi de nc e th atsh e ex ag ge rat edhe r sym

pt om s wh ensh e was see n b y Dr. Slo bo di an . Dr. Slo bo di an ha d e va lu at edW eek le y

an d h adform edanop in io n abo uthe r co nd it io n. Bu t af te r vi ewin g avi de o o f W eek le y rid in g ajet s ki an d p erfo rm in g o th er ac ti vi ti es th at were i nc on si st en t wi th he r supp os edde bi li ta ti ng di sabi li ty, Dr. Slo bo di antes ti fie d th athe di d n otbe li ev e Weekl ey ha d b een tru th fu l dur in g h is ev al ua ti on of h er. Add it io na ll y , W eek le y ’s tre at in g n eu ro su rg eo n, Dr. Ra ym on , cou ldno t ex pl ai n Week le y ’s com

pl ai nt s o f pa in aft er an off ic e v is itin19 99 . He di d n ot be li ev e th e p ai n was crea te d b y cerv ic al rad ic ul op athy or co rdco m pr es si on . He al so co ul d fi ndno di ag no st ic ev id en ce tha t i nd ic at edno nu ni on or “ sl ip pa ge of t he in st ru m en ta ti on syste m .” Dr. Raym on rev ie wedanMRI t ha t s ho wedth atW eek le y ha d t wo s m al l d is c h ern ia ti on s, b utbe cau se of t he ir l oc at io n h e d idno t b el ie ve 6 Case: 12-10594 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 6 of 9th ey

were caus in g Week le y ’s rep orte d s ym pt om s. Dr. Raymon reco m m en de d t ha t W eek le y workat ased en ta ry

workst atus . Mor eo ve r, th e ALJ was no t re qu ire d t o gi ve ev id en ti ary weig htto Dr. Tim m on s’s o pi ni onth atW eek le y was un em pl oyabl e b ecau se th e d et erm in at io n i s o ne th atis res erv edto th e Co m m is si on er. Se e 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 52 7( d) . W eek le y als o a rg ue s tha t the ALJ co m m it te d re ve rs ib le erro r by fail in g t o ev al ua te he r pa in -rel at edtes ti m on y un de r th is Co urt’s thr ee-p artst an da rd . She co nt en ds th atby fail in g t o p ro pe rly eval ua te he r te st im on y an d c om pl ai nt s o f pa in , th e ALJ’s d et erm in at io n t ha t s he was n otcred ib le is no t s up po rte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. An i nd iv idua l s eek in g S oc ia l Se cu rit y di sabi li ty ben efi ts be ars th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g t ha t s he is di sabl ed . Moo re , 40 5 F .3dat 1 21 1. A cl ai m an t m ay est ab li sh th atsh e h as a di sabi li ty thro ug h h er o wn t es ti m on y reg ard in g h er p ai n o r ot he r subjec ti ve sym

pt om s. Dyer

v. Barnh ar t , 39 5 F .3d12 06 , 12 10 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m). In s uc h acas e, th e cl ai m an t m us t s ho w: (1 ) ev id en ce o f anun de rlyin g m ed ic al co nd it io n andeit he r (2 ) ob jecti ve m ed ic al ev id en ce tha t co nf irms th e se ve rit y

of t he all eg ed pa in ari si ng fro m

th atco nd it io n o r (3 ) th atth e o bjec ti ve ly det erm in ed m ed ic al co nd it io n i s o f su cha se ve rit y th atitcanbe reas on ab ly ex pe ct edto gi ve ris e to th e al le ge d p ai n. Id. Rev ers al is warran te d i f th e ALJ’s d eci si on co nt ai ns no ev id en ce o f th e p ro pe r 7 Case: 12-10594 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 7 of 9ap pl ic at io n o f th e th ree- pa rt s ta nd ard . Se e Hol t v. S ul li va n , 92 1 F .2d12 21 , 12 23 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 1) (pe r curiam). The ALJis no t re qu ire d t o re ci te th e p ai n s ta nd ard wor d fo r wor d, b utin st ead , m us t m ak e fi nd in gs th atin di cat e th atth e st an da rdwas ap pl ie d. Se e W

il so n v . Barnh ar t , 28 4 F .3d12 19 , 12 25 –2 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (pe r cu ria m) (h ol di ng th atth e ALJ d idno t err whe re h is fin di ng s an d d is cu ss io n in di cat edth atth e th ree- part s ta nd ardwas app li edan d h e ci te d t o 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .15 29 ). Inev al ua ti ng a cl ai m an t’s t es ti m on y , th e ALJ s ho ul d a ls o c on si de r: ( 1) th e cl ai m an t’s d ai ly acti vi ti es ; (2 ) th e “ du rat io n, fr eque nc y , andin te ns ity ” o f th e cl ai m an t’s s ym

pt om s; (3) “ [p ]recip it at in g a ndag gr av at in g fa ct or s; ” (4 ) th e effe ct iv en es s an d s id e eff ect s o f an y

m ed ic at io ns ; an d (5 ) tr eat m en t o r ot he r m eas ur es tak enby the cla im an t t o a ll ev ia te sym pt om s. 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .15 29 (c)( 3) . Add it io na ll y , th e ALJ m ay co ns id er the cla im an t’s “ ap pe aran ce an d d em ean ordu rin g t he he ari ng ” as a ba si s o f cre di bi li ty, al th ou gh itcan no t im po se hi s o bs erv at io ns inli euof aco ns id erat io n o f th e o bjec ti ve m ed ic al ev id en ce. No rr is v. Heckl er , 76 0 F .2d11 54 , 11 58 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). The ALJis to co ns id er the se fact or s i n l ig htof t he ot he r ev id en ce i n t he reco rd . 20 C.F.R. § 4 04 .15 29 (c)( 4) . If th e ALJ d is cred it s the cla im an t’s t es ti m on y as t o h er subjec ti ve sym

pt om s, i t “ m

us t cl earl y

art ic ul at e ex pl ic itan d a de qu at e rea so ns for ” 8 Case: 12-10594 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 8 of 9do in g s o. Dyer , 39 5 F .3dat 1 21 0 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The ALJ

m us t al so sh ow tha t i t co ns id eredth e cl ai m an t’s m ed ic al co nd it io n a s a wh ol e. Id . Here, the ALJ d idno t err by fail in g t o e xp li ci tl y cit e to ou r th ree- part st an da rdbe cau se th e rec or d re fle ct s tha t the ALJ co ns id eredan d c it edto th e reg ul at io ns on whi chth e st an da rdis ba se d a ndap pl ie d t he st an da rdco rrec tl y . Fu rth erm or e, subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e ALJ’s d et erm in at io n t ha t W eek le y ’s subjec ti ve co m pl ai nt s o f pa in were n otcred ib le . Whe n m ak in g a cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n, the ALJ m us t s ho w th athe co ns id eredth e cl ai m an t’s

“ m ed ic al co nd it io n a s a wh ol e,” an d i n t hi s ca se , th e ALJ’s an al y si s o f th e ob jecti ve m ed ic al ev id en ce an d o th er ev id en ce i n the reco rdco m pl ie s wi th th is requi rem en t. Se e Dyer , 39 5 F .3dat 1 21 0. Bec au se subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e ALJ’s co nc lu si on s, “ [w]e m ay no t d eci de th e fac ts 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 t he Co m

mis si on er.” W

in sc he l , 63 1 F .3dat 1 17 8 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d a lt erat io n o mit te d) . AFFIRMED .

9 Case: 12-10594 Date Filed: 08/13/2012 Page: 9 of 9