IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30923

Summary Calendar

SHELDRICK DEJOHNETTE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:15-CV-505

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sheldrick DeJohnette applied for Social Security Disability Insurance 

(“SSDI”) benefits and was denied. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) 

reviewed DeJohnette’s application and concluded that, because DeJohnette 

was capable of working with certain restrictions, he was not entitled to SSDI 

benefits. The district court concluded there was substantial record evidence 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 8, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30923 Document: 00513903277 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2017
No. 16-30923

2

supporting the ALJ’s factual determinations, and affirmed the ALJ’s ruling. 

DeJohnette appeals. We affirm.

I

DeJohnette applied for SSDI benefits, alleging disability because of 

schizophrenia psychosis, post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression, 

high blood pressure, migraines, anxiety/panic attacks, and insomnia. After his 

claim was initially denied by the state agency, DeJohnette requested and 

received a hearing before the ALJ. The ALJ applied the five-step sequential 

evaluation process established by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) 

to determine whether an individual is disabled for purposes of SSDI benefits. 

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). At step four, the ALJ determined that DeJohnette, 

despite his various ailments, could continue to perform his past work as a 

paper mill laborer. The ALJ therefore determined that DeJohnette did not 

qualify for SSDI benefits. 

DeJohnette sought to appeal the ALJ’s decision to the SSA’s Appeals 

Council. The Appeals Council declined DeJohnette’s request for review, 

concluding there was “no reason under [SSA] rules to review the [ALJ’s] 

decision.” DeJohnette then went to federal district court. The district court 

affirmed the ALJ’s ruling.

II

“In an appeal from an ALJ’s denial of [SSDI] benefits, we review the 

ALJ’s decision alone to determine whether [it] applied the proper legal 

standard and, if so, whether substantial evidence supports [its] decision.” 

Randall v. Astrue, 570 F.3d 651, 655 (5th Cir. 2009). 

III

DeJohnette makes three arguments as to why the ALJ’s determination 

was not supported by substantial evidence. He contends that the ALJ: (1) 

 Case: 16-30923 Document: 00513903277 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2017
No. 16-30923

3

wrongly rejected the assessment of Dr. Agarwal, DeJohnette’s treating 

psychiatrist; (2) made a mistaken credibility determination because it did not 

properly take into account the ways in which DeJohnette’s mental 

impairments prevented him from complying with prescribed treatment; and 

(3) mistakenly relied on the testimony of a Vocational Expert (“VE”) to the 

effect that DeJohnette could competently work as a paper mill laborer. None 

of these arguments is availing. We address each in turn. 

A. Dr. Agarwal

After treating DeJohnette in 2012, Dr. Rita Agarwal filled out a form and 

checked a box indicating that DeJohnette “face[d] a substantial possibility of 

deterioration in mental or physical condition or functioning if either home and 

community-based services or nursing facility services [were] not provided in 

less than 120 days.” The form then instructed the physician to “[p]lease provide 

a brief statement supporting your response.” Dr. Agarwal failed to provide any 

such statement. Because Dr. Agarwal failed to provide any explanation 

supporting her conclusions, the ALJ accorded Dr. Agarwal’s opinion “little 

weight.”1

DeJohnette contends that the ALJ’s decision not to credit Dr. Agarwal 

was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The ALJ was well 

within its discretion to conclude that Dr. Agarwal’s checking a single box on a 

single form without any supporting medical evidence did not outweigh the 

other substantial record evidence supporting a finding of no disability. The 

ALJ’s choice not to credit Dr. Agarwal was not error.

 

1 In explaining why it did not lend much credence to Dr. Agarwal’s opinion, the ALJ 

also noted that Dr. Agarwal had herself indicated only one month prior to filling out the form 

that DeJohnette was “doing well.” 

 Case: 16-30923 Document: 00513903277 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/08/2017
No. 16-30923

4

B. Credibility Determination

DeJohnette next argues that the ALJ’s conclusion that DeJohnette’s 

“statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects” of his 

symptoms were not credible was not supported by substantial evidence. As the 

district court explained, the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination was based 

largely on the fact that DeJohnette “was not compliant with his medication. 

There was record evidence demonstrating his condition often improved when 

he was compliant with his medication. . . . Moreover, there is record evidence 

that [DeJohnette] did not complete activities suggested by his treating 

psychologist at the time which may have improved his condition.” The ALJ 

thus found that DeJohnette’s noncompliance with prescribed treatment made 

his testimony as to the severity of his symptoms not credible. 

DeJohnette now argues that the ALJ’s credibility determination was 

flawed because, to the extent that DeJohnette was not complaint with his 

treatment, that noncompliance was itself caused by his medical condition. He 

contends, in short, that the nature of his medical condition “excuses any 

noncompliance.” But, as the Commissioner notes in her brief, the ALJ asked 

DeJohnette point blank, “do you take the medication as prescribed by your 

doctors?” and DeJohnette answered, “Yes sir.” Thus, DeJohnette’s argument 

before us now that his noncompliance is excusable—which implicitly 

acknowledges that such noncompliance existed—itself contradicts 

DeJohnette’s own testimony and calls his credibility into question. The ALJ’s 

adverse credibility determination was amply supported by substantial record 

evidence.

C. VE’s Testimony 

Finally, DeJohnette argues that the ALJ erred in relying on the VE’s 

testimony to the effect that DeJohnette could work in his old job at the paper 

 Case: 16-30923 Document: 00513903277 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/08/2017
No. 16-30923

5

mill. The ALJ asked the VE whether a hypothetical individual with limitations 

comparable to DeJohnette’s would be able to perform work as a laborer in a 

paper mill. The VE answered in the affirmative. DeJohnette now argues that, 

because the ALJ incorrectly discredited Dr. Agarwal’s medical findings, the 

hypothetical person the ALJ described to the VE—who embodied DeJohnette’s 

limitations as the ALJ saw them—was not actually an accurate reflection of 

DeJohnette. Because we conclude that the ALJ correctly gave little weight to

Dr. Agarwal’s medical findings such as they were, this argument is also 

unavailing. The hypothetical person described to the VE was fairly analogous 

to DeJohnette, and so the ALJ’s decision to credit the VE’s testimony was 

supported by substantial evidence.

IV

We AFFIRM the holding of the district court. 

 Case: 16-30923 Document: 00513903277 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/08/2017