[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10966

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

CHARLES WAYNE COLE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-01695-JHE

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 1 of 16
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10966

Before WILSON, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

Charles Wayne Cole appeals the district court’s order 

affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s (“Commissioner”) 

denial of supplemental security income (“SSI”). On appeal, Cole 

argues that we should reverse the denial of his claim for SSI because 

the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erroneously found the

medical opinions of two experts unpersuasive. After review, we 

affirm. 

I. Background 

a. Cole’s medical history 

The following medical history was reviewed by the ALJ, 

who denied Cole’s SSI claim, and by the magistrate judge, who

affirmed the ALJ’s decision.1 In early 2019, Cole applied for SSI, 

asserting that his disability began on January 1, 2016. In his 

disability report, Cole stated that his ability to work was limited 

due to metal rods in his left leg, mental problems, and constant,

severe pain. He explained that he was employed as a carpenter 

from 1991 to 2004 and stopped working on July 1, 2004, because of 

his medical conditions. 

1 Both parties consented to a magistrate judge conducting proceedings in the 

case below, including the entry of final judgment. 

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 2 of 16
22-10966 Opinion of the Court 3

In December 2018, Cole was discharged from a mental 

health center with a diagnosis of alcohol-induced depression. He 

visited the mental health center again several days later, reporting 

that he “self-medicated for pain with alcohol” and that “[h]e [was] 

interested in seeking help in managing pain.” A week later, he 

returned to the center and “reported that he [was] feeling well”

except for slight tightness in his chest, which began after he started 

his medication. He reported that he was getting along well with 

others and expressed no other concerns. 

In April 2019, consulting psychologist Robert A. Storjohann, 

Ph.D., examined Cole. In his report, Dr. Storjohann observed that 

Cole was appropriately dressed and groomed and was “[o]riented 

to person, place, situation, and time.” Dr. Storjohann’s report also 

noted that Cole “appeared to be experiencing considerable pain 

and discomfort throughout the exam” and Cole’s demeanor “was 

that of being quite dysphoric and ill-at-ease.” During the 

examination, Cole performed simple math calculations and various 

cognitive exercises related to concentration and attention without 

error. For example, Cole successfully counted backwards from 20 

to 1; spelled “world” forwards and backwards; subtracted serial 

sevens from 100; recalled two of three objects after a five-minute 

delay; recalled his son’s birthday; described his activities from the 

previous day without difficulty; and identified the United States 

president, two states that bordered Alabama, the capital of 

Alabama, and the number of months in a year. As to abstractions, 

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 3 of 16
4 Opinion of the Court 22-10966

Cole identified similarities amongst objects (e.g., that an orange 

and banana were both fruits) and the lessons of proverbs. 

Dr. Storjohann found that Cole’s thoughts and speech were 

logical, coherent, and goal-directed and without loose associations 

or confusion. As to Cole’s thought content, Dr. Storjohann 

observed no hallucinations or delusions. Nonetheless, Dr. 

Storjohann opined that Cole had “significant mental health 

difficulties” and that Cole was “markedly impaired” in his ability to 

maintain effective social interactions in various settings and 

“moderately to markedly impaired” in his “ability to understand, 

carry out, and remember simple work-related instructions.” 

The next month, James P. Temple, M.D., examined Cole. 

Cole’s chief complaint to Dr. Temple was “[r]ight lower extremity 

pain” and back pain from a motorcycle accident that occurred in 

2011. Dr. Temple observed that Cole walked with a crutch, “had 

a marked limp,” and was “unable to bend, squat, and stoop because 

of pain and decreased range of motion of his hips and back.” In the 

opinion section of his report, Dr. Temple wrote: “At the present 

time, this patient is unemployable. He is in dire need of a family 

physician for investigative purposes.” 

One month later, Amy Cooper, Ph.D., performed Cole’s 

mental residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment. She found 

that Cole could “understand and remember simple instructions 

and work procedures,” “carry out simple tasks,” and “tolerate 

ordinary work pressures.” She also found that he would benefit 

from being in an environment with familiar coworkers, a flexible 

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 4 of 16
22-10966 Opinion of the Court 5

schedule, and regularly scheduled rest breaks “but [would] still be 

able to maintain a work pace consistent for the mental demands of 

competitive level work.” As part of her assessment, Dr. Cooper 

evaluated Dr. Storjohann’s and Dr. Temple’s medical opinions on 

Cole’s mental health. She concluded that Dr. Storjohann’s opinion 

was “without substantial support” and only “somewhat consistent 

with [the] evidence in file” and that Dr. Temple’s opinion was 

“without substantial support” and “not fully consistent with [the] 

evidence in file.” 

Anthony Pitts, M.D., performed Cole’s physical RFC 

assessment. After reviewing the record, Dr. Pitts found that Cole 

could perform a range of light work with postural, manipulative, 

and environmental limitations. 

In the fall of 2019, Cole saw his family doctor, Robert W. 

Bartel, M.D., twice. During both visits, Cole denied having 

depression or anxiety. On examination during both visits, Dr. 

Bartel observed that Cole was alert, awake, and oriented; that his 

memory was intact; and that his judgment, mood, and affect were 

normal. On the first visit, Dr. Bartel reported that Cole had normal 

motor tone and coordination, normal range of motion, no motor 

or sensory deficits, and an unsteady gait but that he should “have 

minimal difficulty . . . using a walking stick [for his] leg weakness.” 

On the second visit, Dr. Bartel observed that Cole used a walking 

stick and had diminished range of motion. As to Cole’s 

neurological examination, Dr. Bartel noted “[n]o [c]hanges” since 

Cole’s last visit. 

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 5 of 16
6 Opinion of the Court 22-10966

In March 2020, Cole visited Dr. Bartel again. Dr. Bartel

examined Cole and described Cole as having normal judgment, 

normal mood and affect, and an intact memory. Dr. Bartel also 

observed that Cole was “pleasant” and “cooperative” and noted no 

motor or sensory deficits. 

In January 2020, Cole visited the emergency room for arm, 

back, and leg pain. Cole explained that he had missed an 

appointment with his primary care physician and had not taken his 

pain medicine for three weeks. 

Less than a week later, Cole visited the emergency room 

again, this time for anxiety and shaking. He explained that his

physician had given him medication but that he had been out of 

the medication for over six weeks. 

b. The ALJ hearing and decision

In April 2020, after the Commissioner denied Cole’s claim 

for SSI, an ALJ held a hearing on Cole’s claim. At the hearing, Cole 

testified, consistent with his application for SSI benefits, that he had 

been a carpenter from 1991 to 2004 and that his disability “onset 

date” was January 1, 2016. He testified that he could stand or sit at 

a work chair for 5 to 10 minutes before his back started bothering 

him and that he could walk 15 to 20 feet before needing to sit down 

and rest. He also testified that he could lift five to ten pounds on a 

frequent basis but that Dr. Bartel had told him not to do any lifting. 

Cole reported that his pain was unbearable the majority of the time 

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 6 of 16
22-10966 Opinion of the Court 7

and that his medications did not help with the pain, despite trying 

different medications prescribed by Dr. Bartel. 

A vocational expert (“VE”) also testified at the hearing. 

When asked to assume a hypothetical about an individual with the 

same age, education, prior work experience, and physical and 

mental limitations as Cole, the VE testified that the hypothetical 

individual could not return to his past work as a carpenter but 

could perform certain sedentary jobs—such as an unskilled, 

sedentary inspector, assembly worker, or hand packager. 

After employing the Commissioner’s five-step sequential 

evaluation for determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ 

concluded that Cole was “not disabled” under the Social Security 

Act and denied Cole’s claim for SSI.2 

At step one, the ALJ found that Cole “ha[d] not engaged in 

substantial gainful activity at any time pertinent to this decision.” 

2 The Social Security regulations outline a five-step process that the ALJ uses

to determine whether a claimant is disabled. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 

631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). The five steps are: (1) whether the 

claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether he “has a severe 

impairment or combination of impairments”; (3) “whether th[at] impairment

[or combination of impairments] meets or equals the severity of the specified 

impairments” in the regulations; (4) “whether the claimant can perform any 

of his . . . past relevant work” in light of his RFC; and (5) “whether there are 

significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can 

perform given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.” Id.

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 7 of 16
8 Opinion of the Court 22-10966

At step two, the ALJ identified Cole’s previously fractured 

left leg, depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder as severe 

impairments that significantly limited Cole’s ability to perform 

basic work activities. 

At step three, the ALJ found that despite Cole’s severe 

impairments, Cole did not have an impairment or combination of 

impairments that met one of the impairments listed in applicable 

regulations. 

At step four, after considering the record and medical 

evidence, the ALJ found that Cole had the RFC to perform 

sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR [§] 416.967(a) 

except he could lift and carry twenty pounds 

occasionally and ten pounds frequently; stand and 

walk three hours per eight-hour day; sit six hours per 

eight-hour day; frequently push and pull with the 

bilateral upper and lower extremities; occasionally 

climb ramps and stairs; never climb ladders, ropes, 

and scaffolds; frequently balance and stoop; 

occasionally kneel, crouch, and crawl; frequently 

reach overhead, handle, and finger bilaterally; must 

avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold or heat, 

vibration including power tools and air compression 

tools; limit wet, slippery, icy surfaces and uneven 

terrain; avoid even moderate exposure to hazards 

including unprotected heights; can understand and 

remember simple instructions and work procedures; 

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 8 of 16
22-10966 Opinion of the Court 9

should be able to concentrate and attend to simple 

tasks for two hours and will need all customary rests 

and breaks; could tolerate ordinary work pressures 

but should avoid excessive workloads, quick decision 

making, rapid changes, and multiple demands; is 

likely to do best working with a small number of 

familiar co-workers; and changes in the work 

environment or expectations should be occasional 

and presented gradually to give time for adjustment. 

Travel should be restricted to local and familiar 

environments.

Ultimately, the ALJ found that Cole was unable to perform his past, 

relevant work as a carpenter because its workplace demands

exceeded his RFC. 

The ALJ also found that Dr. Storjohann’s examination 

reports contained “generally benign findings that [were] not 

supportive of the marked limitations noted in his opinion.” After 

considering all the medical evidence in the record, the ALJ 

concluded that Dr. Storjohann’s opinion was unpersuasive and 

“not consistent with the overall medical evidence which show[ed 

that Cole] had normal mood and affect during most of his mental 

status examinations.” 

Likewise, the ALJ did not find Dr. Temple’s opinion 

persuasive because it “was not supported with specific examination 

findings, did not include any specific vocational limitations, and 

[was] conclusory.” The ALJ also concluded that statements that a 

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 9 of 16
10 Opinion of the Court 22-10966

claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work”—like Dr. Temple’s 

opinion that Cole was “unemployable”—were not medical 

opinions. Rather, they were administrative findings reserved to the 

Commissioner. 

Finally, at step five, the ALJ concluded that considering 

Cole’s RFC, age, education, and work experience, there were 

significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that Cole 

could perform. Specifically, the ALJ found that Cole could perform 

sedentary, unskilled work as an inspector, an assembly line worker,

or a hand packager. 

Cole appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Appeals Council, but 

his request for review was denied. 

c. The magistrate judge’s order

Cole then filed a complaint in district court, arguing that the 

ALJ’s determination that Cole was not disabled was not based on 

substantial evidence and that the ALJ did not use the proper legal 

standards. 

The magistrate judge affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.

He noted that “Cole raise[d] a single objection to the ALJ’s 

decision: the ALJ inappropriately rejected the opinions of 

consultative psychological examiner Dr. Robert A. Storjohann and 

consultative medical examiner Dr. James Temple.” The magistrate 

judge concluded that the ALJ did not err because substantial 

evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that the doctors’ opinions 

were unpersuasive. 

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 10 of 16
22-10966 Opinion of the Court 11

Cole timely appealed to this Court. 

II. Standards of Review 

“When, as in this case, the ALJ denies benefits and the 

[Appeals Council] denies review, we review the ALJ’s decision as 

the Commissioner’s final decision.” Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 

1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). “[W]e review de novo the legal 

principles upon which the Commissioner’s decision is based,” and 

“we review the resulting decision only to determine whether it is 

supported by substantial evidence.” Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 

1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). 

In the Social Security context, the threshold for substantial 

evidence is “not high.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 

(2019). It is “more than a mere scintilla” and “means only . . . such 

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion.” Id. (quotations omitted). “Substantial 

evidence is less than a preponderance, and thus we must affirm an 

ALJ’s decision even in cases where a greater portion of the record 

seems to weigh against it.” Simon v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 7 

F.4th 1094, 1103 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). “We may 

not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our 

judgment for that of the [Commissioner].” Winschel v. Comm’r 

of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (alteration in 

original) (quotation omitted). 

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 11 of 16
12 Opinion of the Court 22-10966

III. Discussion 

On appeal, Cole argues that we should reverse the ALJ’s 

denial of SSI because the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinions of Dr. 

Storjohann and Dr. Temple.3 We disagree and affirm because 

there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion that 

Dr. Storjohann’s and Dr. Temple’s opinions were unpersuasive. 

To qualify for SSI, a claimant must be unable “to engage in 

any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically 

determinable physical or mental impairment which can be 

expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected 

to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 

U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Social Security regulations outline a 

five-step process that the ALJ must use to determine whether a 

claimant is disabled.4 Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178. The regulations 

3 To the extent Cole challenges any other aspects of the ALJ’s decision, he has 

forfeited those arguments. An appellant’s brief must address his contentions 

and the reasons for them with citations to the authorities and parts of the 

record on which he relies. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). An appellant forfeits 

an issue when he “raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting 

arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 

678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). Cole’s brief, which is replete with block quotes and 

cursory mentions of various court decisions, falls into this snare. See Harner 

v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 38 F.4th 892, 898–99 (11th Cir. 2022). 

4 As a reminder, the five steps are: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in 

substantial gainful activity; (2) whether he “has a severe impairment or 

combination of impairments”; (3) “whether th[at] impairment [or 

combination of impairments] meets or equals the severity of the specified 

impairments” in the regulations; (4) “whether the claimant can perform any 

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 12 of 16
22-10966 Opinion of the Court 13

also explain what evidence is permitted for admission before an 

ALJ and how an ALJ should consider certain evidence. 

As relevant to this case, the regulations provide that any 

statement about whether a claimant is disabled, able to work, or 

able to perform regular or continuing work is a statement on an 

issue reserved to the Commissioner and is considered “inherently 

neither valuable nor persuasive.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920b(c)(3)(i). 

With respect to medical opinions, for claims filed on or after March 

27, 2017, the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary 

weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or 

prior administrative finding(s), including those from [the 

claimant’s] medical sources.”5 Id. § 416.920c(a). Instead, the ALJ 

must “articulate in [his or her] determination or decision how 

persuasive [he or she] find[s] all of the medical opinions,” taking 

into account five factors: (1) “supportability,” (2) “consistency,” (3) 

the “relationship with the claimant,” (4) “specialization,” and (5) 

“other factors that tend to support or contradict” the opinion. Id.

§ 416.920c(c). The regulations explain that supportability and 

of his . . . past relevant work” in light of his RFC; and (5) “whether there are 

significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can 

perform given the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience.” 

Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178.

5 The regulations relating to the evaluation of medical evidence were revised 

in 2017. Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 

Fed. Reg. 5844 (Jan. 18, 2017) (to be codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 404 & 416)

(technical errors corrected by 82 Fed. Reg. 15,132 (Mar. 27, 2017)). Because 

Cole filed his claim in 2019, these revised regulations apply to his claim. 

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 13 of 16
14 Opinion of the Court 22-10966

consistency are the two most important factors. Id. 

§ 416.920c(b)(2). 

Cole argues that the ALJ erred by refusing to accept Dr. 

Storjohann’s and Dr. Temple’s opinions.6 We disagree. 

Substantial evidence supports the finding that Dr. Storjohann’s and 

Dr. Temple’s opinions are unpersuasive.7 First, the ALJ did not err 

6 Cole also asks this Court (1) to “issue a published decision in this case 

reversing the denial of benefits based on [McClurkin v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 

Comm’r, 625 F. App’x 960 (11th Cir. 2015)] and affirming the holding of 

[McClurkin] as precedent” and (2) to “embrace” Wilder v. Chater, 64 F.3d. 

335, 337–38 (7th Cir. 1995). 

As to McClurkin, first, Cole has not explained why McClurkin, an 

unpublished case, would compel reversal of the ALJ’s decision in this case. 

Second, as a 2015 case, McClurkin applied the pre-2017 version of the 

regulations when assessing how an ALJ should evaluate medical opinions and 

its analysis is thus inapposite here. See McClurkin, 625 F. App’x at 962–63. 

And third, even if McClurkin were otherwise applicable, it is factually 

distinguishable because—unlike this case—the ALJ failed to explain his 

grounds for discounting a medical opinion. See id. 

Similarly, Wilder—an out-of-circuit, 1995 decision that applies 

outdated Social Security regulations and is factually distinguishable—is 

inapplicable. See 64 F.3d at 337–38.

7 Cole contends that the ALJ should have requested additional information if 

the ALJ was not satisfied with the reports of Dr. Storjohann and Dr. Temple. 

But the regulations do not require an ALJ to reach out to doctors for additional 

information in these circumstances, and it was not error for the ALJ not to do 

so. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920b(b)(2) (explaining that it is the ALJ’s prerogative 

to determine the “best way to resolve [an] inconsistency or insufficiency” in 

the evidence). 

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 14 of 16
22-10966 Opinion of the Court 15

by finding that Dr. Storjohann’s examination reports contained 

“generally benign findings that are not supportive of the marked 

limitations noted in his opinion.” Dr. Storjohann’s reports 

documented that Cole was oriented as to person, place, time, and 

situation and could perform various cognitive exercises related to 

concentration, attention, and memory. For example, Cole 

successfully performed simple mathematical calculations, 

described activities from the previous day without difficulty, and 

recalled his son’s birthday and the capital of Alabama, among other 

facts—demonstrating intact recent and remote memory. In the 

realm of abstractions, he successfully identified similarities and the 

lessons of proverbs. And Dr. Storjohann found that Cole’s 

thoughts and speech were logical, coherent, and goal-directed and 

without loose associations or confusion. 

Despite these findings, Dr. Storjohann concluded that Cole 

had “significant mental health difficulties” and that Cole was 

“markedly impaired” in his ability to maintain effective social 

interactions in various settings and “moderately to markedly 

impaired” in his “ability to understand, carry out, and remember 

simple work-related instructions.” Under these facts, the ALJ did 

not err in finding Dr. Storjohann’s opinion unpersuasive and 

inconsistent with Dr. Storjohann’s own benign findings and the 

other medical evidence in the record—such as the evidence from 

Dr. Bartel and Dr. Cooper, who observed Cole’s normal mood and 

affect and found that he was able to “understand and remember 

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 15 of 16
16 Opinion of the Court 22-10966

simple instructions and work procedures” and “carry out simple 

tasks.” 

Second, the ALJ did not err in finding that Dr. Temple’s 

opinion that Cole was “unemployable” was an administrative 

finding reserved to the Commissioner—not a medical opinion. 

The ALJ was correct. The Social Security regulations provide that 

any statement about whether a claimant is disabled or able to work

is a statement on an issue reserved to the Commissioner and is 

“inherently neither valuable nor persuasive” evidence. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 416.920b(c)(3)(i). Moreover, where Dr. Temple did not provide 

any explanation for his opinion, the ALJ did not err in finding that 

Dr. Temple’s opinion “was not supported with specific 

examination findings, did not include any specific vocational 

limitations, and [was] conclusory.”

IV. Conclusion

Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion 

that Dr. Storjohann’s and Dr. Temple’s opinions were 

unpersuasive, the ALJ did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the 

denial of Cole’s claim. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 22-10966 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2023 Page: 16 of 16