FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 23, 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- 15604 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 50 -C V -H L -6 T I N A L . F R E E M A N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t,

v ersu s M I C H A E L J . A S T R U E , C o m m i ssi o n er o f S o ci al S ecu ri ty, 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 o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ar c h 23, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T i na F r e e m a n appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on a f f i rm i ng the2

C om m i s s i one r ’ s de ni a l of di s abi l i ty i ns ur a nc e be ne f i t s , 42 U . S . C . § 405( g) , a nd s uppl e m e nt a l s e c ur i ty i nc om e be ne f i t s , 42 U . S . C . § 1383( c ) ( 3) . F r e e m a n c ont e nds tha tthe A dm i ni s tr a t i ve L a w J udge ( “ A L J ” ) e rr e d ( 1) by nota de qua t e l y a s s e s s i ng he rf unc t i ona l abi l i t i e s ; ( 2) i n w e i ghi ng the opi ni ons of the phy s i c i a ns a nd a ph ys i ca l therapi st ; and (3) i n fi nd i ng thather m ent al i m pai rm ent s w er e notse vere . O u r tas k in co n sid er in g th is ap p ea l i s to d eter m in e w h eth erth e A L J’s deci si on i s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence and the appl i ca t i on of the corre ct le g a l s ta n d a r d s . S e e L e w is v . C a lla h a n , 1 2 5 F .3 d 1 4 3 6 , 1 4 3 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) .

“ S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e i s de f i ne d a s m or e tha n a s c i nt i l l a , i . e . , e vi de nc e tha tm us tdo m ore than crea t e asuspi ci on of the exi st ence of the fa ctt o b e e st abl i shed, and such r e l e va nte vi de nc e a s a r e a s onabl e pe r s on w oul d a c c e pta s a de qua t e t o s uppor tthe c onc l us i on. ” F oot e v. C ha t e r , 67 F . 3d 1553, 1560 ( 11th C i r . 1995) . W e m a y not r e w e ig h th e e v id e n c e o rs u b s titu te o u ro w n ju d g m e n t f o rth a t o f th e A L J , e v e n if w e s h o u ld f

in d th a t th e e v id e n c e p r e p o n d e r a te s a g a in s t th e A L J ’s d e c is io n . M a r tin v . S u lliv a n , 6 7 F .3 d 1 5 5 3 , 1 5 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . T he S oci al S ec uri ty r egul at i on s pre sc ri be the fol l ow i ng fi ve-s t ep “ se qu ent i al e v a lu a tio n ” p r o c e s s to d e te rm in e w h e th e ra c la im a n t is d is ab le d . ( 1 ) T h e d is ab ility e xa m i ne rde t e rm i ne s w he the rthe c l a i m a nti s e nga ge d i n “ s ubs t a nt i a l ga i nf ul a c t i vi ty . ” ( 2) I f

s he i s not , the e xa m i ne rde c i de s w he the rthe c l a i m a nt ’ s c ondi t i on3

o r im p airm en t i s “se v er e,” i.e., w h eth eritsig n ifican tl y lim it s th e c laim an t’ s ph ys i ca l or m ent al abi l i ty t o d o b as i c w ork act i vi t i es . (3) I f i tdo es , the exam i ner de c i de s w he the rthe c l a i m a nt ’ s i m pa i rm e ntm e e t s ore qua l s the s e ve r i ty of the s pe c i f i e d i m pa i rm e nt s i n the L i s t i ng of I m pa i rm e nt s ( “ L i s t i ng” ) , the r e by pr e c l udi ng a ny ga i nf

ul w ork a c t i vi ty . ( 4) I f

the c l a i m a ntha s a s e ve r e i m pa i rm e nt tha tdoe s notm e e tore qua l the s e ve r i ty of a n i m pa i rm e nti n the L i s t i ng, the exam i ner a ss es se s the cl ai m ant ’ s “ re si du al funct i on al capaci ty” (“ R F C ”) , w hi ch m e a s ur e s w he the rthe c l a i m a ntc a n pe r f or m pa s tr e l e va ntw ork de s pi t e the i m pai rm ent . (5) I f the cl ai m anti s unabl e t o d o p as tre l evantw ork, the exam i ner de t e rm i ne s w he the r , i n l i ghtof the R F C , a ge , e duc a t i on, a nd w ork e xpe r i e nc e , the c l a i m a ntc a n pe r f

orm othe rw ork. S e e C r a y t on v. C a l l a ha n, 120 F . 3d 1217, 1219 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ). W i th th ese p ri n ci p l es ath an d , w e tu rn t o F reem an ’ s co n t en t i o n s. F r e e m a n c ont e nds tha tthe A L J f a i l e d t o i de nt i f

y he rf unc t i ona l l i m i t a t i ons a nd w ork- r e l a t e d abi l i t i e s on a f unc t i on- by - f

unc t i on ba s i s . S he s ubm i t s tha tthe A L J f ai l ed t o m ake s uffi ci ent l y s peci fi c f i nd i ng s r egar di ng her abi l i t i es . In addi t i on , the A L J e rr ed by po si ng hypo thet i ca l i nd i vi du al s t o the vo ca t i on al expert ( “ V E ” ) tha tha d no l i m i t a t i ons on s t a ndi ng, w a l ki ng, ors i tt i ng.

“ T he R F C as se ss m entm ustfi rs ti dent i fythe i nd i vi du al ’ s f un ct i on al l i m i t a t i ons orr e s tr i c t i ons a nd a s s e s s . . . he rw ork- r e l a t e d abi l i t i e s on a f unc t i on by4

funct i on basi s . . . . O nl y a ft erthatm ayR F C be expres se d i n t erm s of e xert i on al le v e ls o f w o rk , s e d e n ta ry , lig h t, m e d iu m , h e a v y , a n d v e ry h e a v y .” S o c ia l S e c u r ity R ul i ng ( “ S S R ” ) 96- 8p, 1996 W L 374184. T he A L J ha s a duty t o m a ke c l e a rthe w e ig h t a c c o r d e d to e a c h ite m o f e v id e n c e a n d th e r e a s o n s f o rth e d e c is io n s o th a t a r e vi e w i ng c our tw i l l be abl e t o de t e rm i ne w he the rthe ul t i m a t e de c i s i on i s ba s e d on subst ant i al evi dence. C ow artv. S chw ei ker, 66 2 F . 2d 73 1, 73 5 (11 th C i r. 19 81 ). In a ddi t i on, a s w e ha ve not e d:

L ig h t w o rk in v o lv e s lif

tin g n o m o r e th a n 2 0 p o u n d s a t a t i m e w i th f

r e que ntl i f

t i ng orc a rry i ng of

obj e c t s w e i ghi ng up t o 10 pounds . E ve n though the w e i ghtl i f t e d m a y be v ery l i tt l e, a j o b i s i n th i s cat eg o ry w h en i treq u i res a go od deal of w al ki ng or st andi ng , or w hen i ti nv ol ves s i tt i ng m os tof

the t i m e w i th s om e pus hi ng a nd pul l i ng of a rm orl e g c ontr ol s . T o be c ons i de r e d c apabl e of p erfo rm i n g a fu l l o r w i d e ran g e o f l i g h tw o rk , yo u m u st h av e th e ab i l i ty t o d o su b st an t i al l y al l o f th ese act i v i t i es. W al ker v. B ow en, 82 6 F . 2d 99 6, 10 00 (11th C i r. 19 87 ). In addi t i on , “ l i gh tw ork re qu i re s s t andi ng or w al ki ng , off a nd on , for at ot al of approx i m at el y 6 ho urs of a n 8 - h o u rw o rk d a y .” S S R 8 3 - 1 0 , 1 9 8 3 W L 3 1 2 5 1 . W hi l e the A L J c oul d ha ve be e n m or e s pe c i f i c a nd e xpl i c i ti n hi s f

i ndi ngs , he di d c ons i de ra l l of

the e vi de nc e a nd f

ound tha ti tdi d nots uppor tthe l e ve l of di sabi l i ty F re em an cl ai m ed. O nl y a ft erthe he det erm i ned thatshe f ai l ed t o carry her burden o f s ho w i ng thatshe had becom e di sabl ed fr om perf orm i ng any of her5

w o rk - r e la te d a c tiv itie s d id h e s ta te th a t s h e c o u ld p e r f o rm lig h t e x e r tio n a l a c tiv ity . T here fore , the A L J c om pl i ed w i th S S R 96 -8p b y c on si deri ng F re em an’ s f un ct i on al l i m i t at i o n s an d restri ct i o n s an d , o n l y aft er h e fo u n d n o n e, p ro ceed i n g t o ex p ress he rr e s i dua l f

unc t i ona l l i m i t a t i ons i n t e rm s of e xe r t i ona l l e ve l s . F ur the rm or e , the A L J ’ s a na l y s i s of

the e vi de nc e a nd s t a t e m e nttha tF r e e m a n c oul d pe r f orm l i ght w ork i ndi c a t e d how m uc h w ork- r e l a t e d a c t i vi ty s he c oul d pe r f or m be c a us e “ l i ght w ork requi re s s t andi ng or w al ki ng , off a nd on , for at ot al of approx i m at el y 6 ho urs of a n 8- hourw orkda y . ” S S R 83- 10. T he A L J a l s o t ol d the V E tha tthe hypo thet i ca l i nd i vi du al s they w er e di sc ussi ng w er e l i m i t ed t o l i gh texert i on al a c t i vi ty . T he r e f

or e , the A L J ’ s hy pothe t i c a l s di d ha ve l i m i t a t i ons on s i tt i ng, st andi ng , and w al ki ng . In sum , the A L J a dequ at el y a nal yz ed and d es cr i bed F reem an ’ s fu n ct i o n al cap aci ty. F re em an cont ends thatthe A L J i m prop er l y r ej ec t ed the op i ni on s of D r. J a me s Go s s , Dr . Br a d l e y W a l t e r , a n d Ea r l Fo l s o m, a p h y s i c a l th e r ap i s t . An ALJ

“ i s free t o rej ectth e o p i n i o n o f an y p h ysi ci an w h en th e ev i d en ce su p p o rt s a c o n tr a ry c o n c lu s io n .” 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 ) . “T h e te s tim o n y o f

a tr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n m u s t b e g iv e n s u b s ta n tia l o rc o n s id e r ab le w e i ghtunl e s s ‘ good c a us e ’ i s s how n t o the c ontr a ry . ” C r a w f or d v. C om m ’ rof S o c. S ec u rity, 3 6 3 F .3 d 1 1 5 5 , 1 1 5 9 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). “A trea ti n g p h ys ician ’s6

re po rtm aybe di sc ou nt ed w hen i ti s notac com pani ed by obj ec t i ve m edi ca l evi dence or i s w ho l l y c on cl usory. ” I d. (quo t at i on om i tt ed). T w o fac t ors thatm ay w e i gh i n f

a vorof di s c ount i ng a tr e a t i ng phy s i c i a n’ s opi ni on a r e w he n the opi ni on i s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th the phy s i c i a n’ s ow n tr e a tm e ntnot e s a nd w he n the opi ni on ap p e a r s to b e b a s e d p r im a r ily o n th e c la im a n t’s s u b je c tiv e c o m p la in ts o f

p a in . I d . T he op i ni on of an exam i ni ng ph ys i ci an m ayno tbe ac ce pt ed ov erthe contra ry opi ni on of

a tr e a t i ng phy s i c i a n unl e s s the r e i s good c a us e f orc r e di t i ng the e x a m in in g p h y s ic ia n ’s o p in io n o v e rth e o p in io n s o f th e tr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n s . L e w is v. C a l l a ha n, 125 F . 3d 1436, 1440- 41 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . F i na l l y , the opi ni ons of no n-m edi ca l do ct ors a re ent i t l ed t o l es s w ei gh tthan the op i ni on s of m edi ca l do ct ors. F al ge v. A pfel , 15 0 F . 3d 13 20 , 13 24 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). F r e e m a n poi nt s t o a n A ugus t20, 2002 r e por tby D r . G os s , a tr e a t i ng p h ysi ci an , w h ere D r. G o ss i n d i cat es th atsh e w as l i m i t ed t o sed en t ary act i v i ty. S ub se qu entevi dence re veal ed, ho w ever , thatF re em an w as no tl i m i t ed t o sedent ary a c t i vi ty . F ori ns t a nc e , D r . J a c obs on, a n e xa m i ni ng phy s i c i a n, i de nt i f i e d no m a

j or pr obl e m s w i th he rkne e on J a nua ry 21, 2003. D r . W a l t e r , a tr e a t i ng phy s i c i a n, not e d on S e pt e m be r9, 2003, tha ts he w a s doi ng “ qui t e w e l l ” w i th a norm a l r a nge o f m o ti o n an d n o ef

fu sio n . T h u s, th e A L J h ad “g o o d ca u se ” to d isco u n t D r. G o ss ’s op i ni on thatF re em an w as l i m i t ed t o sedent ary a ct i vi ty. S ee C ra w ford, 36 3 F . 3d at7

1159. D r . W a l t e ropi ne d tha tF r e e m a n s houl d ha ve a t ot a l kne e r e pl a c e m e nton O ct ob er20 , 20 04 , bu tthe A L J gave l i tt l e w ei gh tt o h i s opi ni on because i tw as ba s e d onl y on F r e e m a n’ s c om pl a i nt s of s e ve r e pa i n the da y a f

t e rthe he a r i ng (b ef o re th e A L J) . L es s th an a m o n th ea rlier, D r. W alter r es p o n d ed to F re em an ’s

“ s ubs t a nt i a l [ a nd] unr e m i tt i ng kne e pa i n” by s t a t i ng tha tthe r e w a s no e vi de nc e of m eni sc al t ea rs and thather x-r ay s l oo ked “ pretty goo d” w i th the “ pat el l ofem oral jo in ts n o t sh o w in g th at m u ch w ea r.” T h e in co n sisten cies b etw ee n D r. W alter’s op i ni on s c om bi ned w i th the fa ctthatthe do ct or’ s s ub se qu entop i ni on w as base d pri m ar i l y on F re em an’ s c om pl ai nt s of pai n, w i tho utany m edi ca l supp ort , prov i ded

“ good c a us e ” f

orthe A L J t o gi ve l i tt l e w e i ghtt o the opi ni on tha tF r e e m a n ne e de d a to ta l k n e e r e p la c e m e n t. S e e C r a w f o r d , 3 6 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 9 . A dd i t i on al l y, w hi l e F ol som ’ s opi ni on di d i nd i ca t e thatF re em an had v ery l i tt l e f unc t i oni ng, the opi ni on i s e nt i t l e d t o l e s s w e i ghttha n the opi ni ons of the m e d ic a l d o c to r s b e c a u s e h e is a p h y s ic a l th e r ap is t. S e e F a lg e , 1 5 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 4 . H ence , i n l i gh tof the evi dence fr om D r. W al t erand D r. Ja cobson i nd i ca t i ng that F r e e m a n’ s i nj ury w a s nota s s e ve r e a s s he c l a i m e d, the A L J ’ s de c i s i on t o a s s i gn no evi dent i ary val ue t o F ol som ’ s a ss es sm enti s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence. F r e e m a n c ont e nds tha tthe A L J e rr e d i n f i ndi ng he rde pr e s s i on nott o beIn additi on , F re e man c ontend s f or thefirs t timein h er reply brie f t hat th eALJ faile d to 1 consider her depression in combination with her physical re strictions. Arguments raised f or the firs t timein a

reply brie f a reno t prop erly

be fo rethi s c ourt , a

nd wewi ll n ot c on sider t

hem. H all v. Coram HealthcareCorp., 157 F.3d 1286, 1290 ( 11th Cir. 1998). 8 se vere . C on tra ryt o h ercont ent i on , subst ant i al evi dence s ho w ed thather m ent al

1 illn e s s d id n o t s ig n if

ic a n tly lim it h e rab ility to d o b a s ic w o rk a c tiv itie s . A ppr oxi m a t e l y one m onth a f t e rs he be ga n r e c e i vi ng tr e a tm e ntf orde pr e s s i on f

r om D r . B a ttle s , h e in d ic a te d th a t w h ile s h e r e m a in e d s y m p to m a tic , s h e w a s a le r t, ac t i ve, st abl e, and i m prov ed. S ho rt l y a ft erthi s, she t ol d D r. B att l es thatshe w as gett i ng al on g w el l . D r. B att l es i nd i ca t ed i n h i s l as tre po rtthat“ [t ] he depress i on has i m prov ed and i ti s s t abl e. ” T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RME D.