[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-15845

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cv-00148-JSS

THUONG MENNELLA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(September 22, 2017)

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-15845 Date Filed: 09/22/2017 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Thuong Mennella appeals the district court’s order affirming the

Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. 

Mennella contends the ALJ erred: (1) by failing to give substantial weight to 

treating physician Dr. Pratima Deshmukh’s opinion that Mennella needs to elevate 

her right leg after 10-15 minutes of sitting and (2) by determining Mennella’s

subjective complaints were only partially credible. After review,1 we affirm. 

I. DISCUSSION 

A. Treating Physician’s Opinion

First, Mennella asserts the ALJ erred by failing to give substantial weight to 

Dr. Deshmukh’s opinion that Mennella needs to elevate her right leg after 10-15 

minutes of sitting. We disagree.

The testimony of a treating physician must be given substantial or 

considerable weight unless good cause is shown to the contrary. Lewis v. 

Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). The ALJ must clearly articulate 

reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician. Id. Failure to 

do so is reversible error. Id. But where the ALJ clearly articulates specific reasons 

 1 Although the Court reviews the Commissioner’s decision with deference to the factual 

findings, no such deference is given to the legal conclusions. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 

1211 (11th Cir. 2005). “[W]e review de novo the legal principles upon which the 

Commissioner’s decision is based.” Id. The resulting decision is reviewed only to determine 

whether it is supported by substantial evidence. Id. “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla 

and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotations 

omitted). “We may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment 

for that of the [Commissioner].” Id.

Case: 16-15845 Date Filed: 09/22/2017 Page: 2 of 5 
3

for failing to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, there is no 

reversible error. See Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Good cause exists where the treating physician’s opinion is not bolstered by the 

evidence, where the evidence supports a contrary finding, or where the treating 

physician’s opinions are conclusory or inconsistent with his own medical records. 

Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440. 

Several reasons the ALJ articulated provide good cause for declining to 

afford controlling weight to Dr. Deshmukh’s opinion. We need only address one. 

As the ALJ observed, Dr. Deshmukh’s opinion that Mennella needs to elevate her 

right leg after 10-15 minutes of sitting is not bolstered by the evidence. Mennella

complained to Dr. Deshmukh of numbness in her leg on June 11, 2012. When Dr. 

Deshmukh’s office followed up a few days later, Mennella reported the pain had 

subsided, but returned when she “overd[id] it.” Nowhere in the treatment notes 

does Dr. Deshmukh advise Mennella to elevate her leg. Mennella did not report 

pain or weakness in her right thigh during at least four other visits to Dr. 

Deshmukh. Mennella also denied numbness and tingling in her legs during 

multiple examinations with Dr. Kapil. Finally, Dr. Barber opined Mennella could 

sit without difficulty. In light of this evidence, the ALJ did not err in determining 

good cause existed to afford Dr. Deshmukh’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Case: 16-15845 Date Filed: 09/22/2017 Page: 3 of 5 
4

B. Credibility of Mennella’s Testimony

Second, Mennella contends the ALJ’s conclusion that her statements 

concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms are not 

entirely credible is not supported by substantial evidence. Again, we disagree.

In order to show a disability based on subjective pain testimony, the 

claimant must satisfy two parts of a three-part test showing: (1) evidence of an 

underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence 

confirming the severity of the alleged pain, or (b) that the objectively determined 

medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the claimed 

symptoms. Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002). If the ALJ 

discredits the claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ must articulate explicit and 

adequate reasons for doing so. Id. We will not disturb a clearly articulated 

credibility finding supported by substantial evidence. Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. 

Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780, 782 (11th Cir. 2014). 

No objective medical evidence confirms the severity of the alleged pain or 

shows the removal of a portion of Mennella’s right thigh muscle and tissue could 

be expected to give rise to the claimed symptoms. See Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225. 

Mennella’s strength was normal in her right leg each time it was tested, and 

although some medical records indicate Mennella walked with a limp, later 

medical records indicate her gait was normal. Finally, later medical records 

Case: 16-15845 Date Filed: 09/22/2017 Page: 4 of 5 
5

uniformly indicate her sensation was normal. The ALJ’s clearly articulated 

credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. We will not, 

therefore, disturb it. See Mitchell, 771 F.3d at 782. 

II. CONCLUSION 

The ALJ did not err (1) by failing to give substantial weight to Dr. 

Deshmukh’s opinion that Mennella needs to elevate her right leg after 10-15 

minutes of sitting or (2) by determining Mennella’s subjective complaints were 

only partially credible. Therefore, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-15845 Date Filed: 09/22/2017 Page: 5 of 5