FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J UNE 2, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1637 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00329 -CV -3-RV -MD BRENDA A. W IND, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us JO ANNE B. BARNHART, C o mm i s s i o n e r

o f S o c i a l S e c u r i ty, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al s f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( June 2, 200 5) Be fo re BL A CK , P RY O R and F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Plaintiff-Appellant Brenda A. W ind appeals th rough cou nsel the dist rict co u rt ’s o rd eraf

fi rmin g th e a d m i n i s tra t i v e l aw ju d g e’s (“ALJ ’s ”) d en i al o f Wi n d ’s ap pli catio ns f

or sup ple m en ta l se curi ty

inc om e be ne fi ts ( “ SS I” ), f ile d purs uant t o 42 U . S. C. § 13 83( c) , and f or dis ab ili ty

ins ur an ce be ne fi ts ( “ D IB ”) , f ile d purs uant to 4 2 U . S. C. § 40 5( g) . W ind arg ue s ona

ppe al that the A L J’ s de ci sio n no t t o gr an t be ne fit s t o h er was no t s up po rte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce b ecau se th e ALJ (1) er roneouslyfailed to determ ine that W ind su ffer ed from the “ severe” im pairm ent of obesity , ( 2) failed to properly evaluate and w eigh m edical evidence, (3) fa iled to recontact W ind’s tre ating ph y sician, and (4) posed an im proper hy pothe tic al que sti on t o th e voc at ion al e xpe rt ( “ V E ”) . F or

the r ea sons se t f

orth
m or e fu ll y

be lo w, we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco ur t’s o rd er. InF eb ru ar

y 200 0, W ind

f ile d an a ppl ic at ionf

or D IB and a

r ep ort, a lle gin g di sabi li ty comm en ci ng Feb ru ary 1, 1 99 7, b as edon de pr es si on an d a nx ie ty atta ck s, and an application for SSI, based on an anxiety -related disorder. B oth of her ap pli catio ns w er e de nie d th ro ugh the r ec onsi de ratio n le ve l. W ind the n r eque ste d a he ari ng be fo re an ALJ. O n D ec em

be r 18, 200 1, a t the ti m e of the he ar ing , W ind

w as 46 y ears old ; we ighed 24 5 pou nds; andhad a high scho ol dip lom a, training to be a certified nursing assistant, and som e business s chool. H er past em ploym ent experience3

included working as a nursing assistant and as a hom e attendant. W ind stated th at he r doc tor

r ec om m en de d th at

she sto p w orkin g a s anur sin g a id i n 19 97, be ca use of her depression. W ind also s tated that she was taking Zoloft to treat her depression andher “bad panic attacks.” W ind described her daily activities as includin g livin g in a hous e w ith her 15-y ear- old so n, getting up at approx im ately 10 a.m ., and goin g to bed at ap pr oxi m at el y

11 p . m . , a lth oughshe ha d di ff ic ulty sle ep ing . S he state d th at she

“ som et im es ” did

hou se w ork, c ooki ng, w as hin g di she s, and v isi tin g w ithf ri en ds o r re la tiv es . S he a lso dr ove he r ve hic le oc ca sio na lly , e nj oy ed r ea din g f ic tio n and watc hi ng tel ev is io n, an d s om et im es went to ch ur ch an d wal ke d fo r a few b lo ck s. O n he r co unse l’ s qu es tio nin g, W ind state d th at

she oc ca sio na lly

ha d c ry ing spe lls from her nervousness. W ind also s tated that she had hig h bloo d pressure, but that sh e m an ag edth is co nd it io n wi th m ed ic at io n. The m edical evidence before the AL J revealed that, in May 1999 , D r. Cyn th i a J av el l an a, M. D., a p s ych i at ri s t , e x amin edWin do nre fe rr al fr o m Win d ’s pr im ar y c ar e phy sic ian, D r. Carm enD eL aR osa , M. D . A s part of thi s e xam inatio n, D r. Jave llanaobs er

ve d th at W ind ( 1) w as ne at

and w el l- gr oom ed ; ( 2) appe ar ed of av er ag e int el le ct ; and ( 3) ha d f ai r ins igh t, j udgm en t, and c opi ng a bil iti es ; and (4 ) ha d no a cu te phy sic al dis tr es s. D r. Jave llanaa lso f ound that, a lth oughW ind4

wa s pleasant and cooperative, she appeare d sad and tearful and acknowledged fe el ing anxi ous, de pr es se d, and h el ple ss at t im es . D r. Jave llanadia gnos ed W ind as suffer ing from

dy sthym ic disorder (a c hronic dist urbance of m ood characteriz ed by m il d d ep res si on or l os s o f in te res t i n u su al act iv it ie s) wit h a nx ie ty sym pt om s. In Ju ne 19 99 , th e Co m

m is si on er d ire ct edDr. A. Mit ch Co op er, Ph .D, a psy cholog ist, to exam ine W ind. W ind in form ed Dr . C ooper that she had been de pr es se d and anxi ous “ on and o ff a ll [h er ] li fe . ” W ind

a lso state d th at , a lth ough she ha d tw o to thr ee panic a tta ck s pe r day , the se a tta ck s r ec en tly ha d de cr ea se d in frequency and intensit y . W ind believed th at this im provem ent, a long with her im proved sleeping , w as attributable to her taking Zoloft. W ind to ld Dr. Cooper that, on a ty pic al day , she pr ef

er re d to stay

a t ho m e al one , str ai ght en ed he r hous e and did h ouseho ld chores, enj oy ed m aking crafts and doing handiwork, som etim es painted or visi ted y ard sales, liked to read and watc h television , and vo lunteered at he r ch ur ch . Af ter com pleting his exam ination , D r. Cooper determ ined that W ind was alert and oriented, her r ecent and rem ote m em ory we re intact, her though ts wer e log ic al and c ohe re nt w ithno i ndi catio n of de lus ion al m at er ia l or

biz ar re c ont en t, he r m ood ap pe ar ed

de pr es se d and s om ewha t anxi ous, he r af fe ct w as c onsi ste nt w ithhe r m ood, she de nie d any sui ci da l i de at ion , and h er c ap ac ity f or ins igh t andGA F sc or e s b e tw e e n 5 1 a nd 60 re fl e c t mo de ra

te sy mpt oms , in c lud ingmod e ra te 1 dif fi c ult y in s oc ia l, o c c up atio na l, o r s c ho ol s e tti ng s. GA F sc or e s b e tw e e n 6 1 a nd 70 re fl e c t mi ld sy mptoms, wit h some difficulty in social and oc cupational f unctioning. See Americ an Psy chiatric Ass’n, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Me ntal Disorder s 34 (4th ed. 2000). 5 j udgm en t f

or da ily li vin g w er e fa ir . D r. Co ope r dia gnos ed W ind w ithde pr es siv e disorder and panic diso rder w ith m ild agorapho bia; stated that her progno sis was

“ guard ed ”; and r ec om

m en de d th at

she r ec ei ve ind ivi dua l ps y ch oth er ap y to supp le m en t h er m ed ic at io n. Fr om Jul y 199 9 th ro ugh Apr il 2000 , D r. Jave llanam et br ie fl y w ithW ind

on five occasions, during which m eetings Dr. Javellana noted that W ind’s m ental status r em ai ne d ge ne ra lly unc hange d, a ssi gne d he r a G lob al A sse ssm en t Func tio nin g ( “ G A F” ) sc or e of 55 , and c ont inu ed

pr es cr ibi ng h er

Z olo ft . I n Apr il 1 2000 , the la st tim e W ind m et w ith Dr. Javellana, W ind com plained of increased episodes o f anxiety

and depression. Dr . Javellana, however, noted that W ind was ple as an t and c oope rativ e, r em ai ne d ve rb al and l ogi ca l, de nie d de lus ion s or paranoia, wa s m ildlyanxious and depressed, and w as com petent to giv e inform ed co nse nt f or tr eatm en t. D r. Jave llanaa ga in d ia gnos ed W ind w ithdy sth ym ic dis or de r an d m ood dis or de r, se co ndary to ch ro nic pa in; a sse sse d aG A F of 55; and inf orm ed W ind that sh e w oul d be tr an sf

er ri ng W ind ’ s c as e to a

c oll ea gue f

or future follow-up care.Th e a pp lic a ble fo rm de fi ne s a “ mod e rate ” re str ic tio n a s “ an im pa ir me nt whic h a ff

e c ts 2 but does not prec lude the ability to function.” A “ marke d” re striction is “an impairment which seriously aff ects a bility to function.” 6 On June 20, 2000, Dr . Javellana com pleted a Residual Functional Capacities (“ RFC” ) Form , opining th at W ind su ffer ed from m oderate restrictions in her

2 (1 ) ac tiv iti es of

da ily li vin g; ( 2) c onc en tr at ion , pe rs ist en ce , and p ac e; ( 3) abil ity to unde rs tand, c ar

ry out , and r em em

be r ins tr uc tio ns i n aw ork se tti ng; ( 4) abil ity to re spon d to c ow orke rs and s upe rv isi on i n aw ork se tti ng; and ( 5) he r ab ili ty to perform sim ple and repetitive tasks. D r. Javellana also determ ined that W ind had a m ode rate to m ar

ke d r es tr ic tio n inm ai nta ini ng s oc ia l f unc tio nin g. I n a ddi tio n, D r. Jave lannaind ic at ed

that W ind

ha d no t ha d e pis ode s of

de te ri or at ionor de co m pe ns at io n a t wo rk . O n th e oth er

hand, in anide nti ca l f

orm D r. Jave llanac om

ple te d on Se pte m be r 11, 200 0, D r. Jave llanaopi ne d th at W ind onl y suf fe re d f ro m m ode rate re str ic tio ns i n m ai nta ini ng h er soc ia l f unc tio nin g, a lon g w ithhe r co nc en tr at ion , pe rs ist en ce , and p ac e. A lso c ontrary to he r June 200 0 a sse ssm en t, D r. Jave llana de te rm ine d th at

W ind suf fe re d f ro m m ar ke d r es tr ic tio ns i n he r ac tiv iti es of da ily liv ing , he r ab ili ty

to re spon d to sup er

vis ionin a w ork se tti ng, and h er abil ity to perform repetitive tasks in a work setting. More over, D r. Javellana opined th at7

W ind ha d aG A F of

50 t o 55 , and tha t sh e w as “ una ble to m ai nta in w ork w ith out further stabilization and rehabilitation .” In addition to the adm issio n of this m edical evidence, a V E te stified at W ind ’ s a dm ini str at ive he ar ing , statin g th at W ind ’ s pa st r el ev an t w ork w as a s a nursing assistant and a hom e attendant, both of which w ere m edium , sem i-skilled
w ork. T he A L J th ena ske d th e V E the f oll ow ing hy

pothe tic al que sti on: A s s u me I wa s t o l i mi t[ Wi n d ] t o med i u m-t yp e wo rk. . . p h ys i c a l l y, but I ’ m goi ng t o t ak e int o a cc ount that sh e ha s ps y ch olo gic al and em ot io na l p ro bl em s t ha t wi ll bri ng he r to a li m it edbu t s at is fact ory , a m ild to m ode rate de sc ri pti on o f he r ab ili ty to pe rf orm r ep et iti ve ta sks in a w ork se tti ng, int er ac t w ithsup er vis or s, de al w ithw ork stre sse s, m ai nta ini ng atte nti on and c onc en tr at ion ; [ ina udi ble ] r em em

be r an d carr y out ins tr uc tio ns; and t o r el at e pr ed ic ta bly in soc ia l si tuatio ns. [I naudi ble ] . W iththo se r es tr ic tio ns, w oul d th er e be j obs in the j ob [mark et ]? T he V E r ep lie d th at , a lth oughW ind c oul d no t pe rf

orm he r pa st r el ev an t w ork, she co ul d p erfo rm

th e works of p os it io ns su ch as alau nd ry work er o r a h an d p ack ag er. Mor eo ve r, w he n th e A L J a ske d th e V E if thi s c onc lus ionw oul d c hange if he as sum ed that W ind

ha d am ar

ke d li m itatio n inhe r ab ili ty to pe rf orm r ep et iti ve tasks in a work setting and in interacting with supervisors, the VE responded that th es e co nd it io ns “ wou ldpre cl ud e an y workact iv it y .” T he A L J in iti al ly

de te rm ine d th at

W ind pr ev iou sly

f ile d a ppl ic at ion s f

or D IB and S SI , w itha

pr ote ct ive f

ili ng d at e of

May 13, 199 8, w hic h w er e de nie d onWind has not challeng ed this determination on appe al. We, there fore , conclude that 3 any arguments on it are a

bandoned. See Acc ess Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues not ar gued in initial brief ar e dee med aba ndoned). Reg ardle ss, as the AL J deter mined, a cla imant only

is eligible f

or DI B be nefits if she de mon str ate s d isa

bil ity on or be fo re the la st d ate fo r whic h s he wa s in sure d. Se e 42 U. S.C. § 423(a) (1)( A). 8 A ugus t 20 , 199 8, and a

ppl ic at ion s f

or D IB and S SI , w ithapr ote ct ive f ili ng d at e of D ec em be r 14, 199 8, w hic h w er e de nie d onAugus t 12 , 199 9. T he A L J no te d th at , al tho ugh the se appl ic at ion s w er e el igi ble f or r eo pe nin g w ithasho w ing of goo d ca use and c au se r es pe ct ive ly , r eo pe nin g w as not w ar rante d. T he A L J a lso de te rm ine d th at , be ca

use W ind ’ s la st a

ppl ic at ion s w er e de nie d onAugus t 12 , 19 99 , th e ear li es t d at e th atsh e co ul d b e fo un d d is ab le d was Aug us t 1 3, 1 99 9. Thus, bec ause W ind on ly wa s insu red up to Dec em ber 31, 1998, she w as pr ec lud ed f ro m obt ai nin g D IB be ne fi ts. 3 T he A L J ne xt d et er

m ine d th at

W ind ha d se ve re im

pa irm en ts p ri m ar ily

due to hy pertension, depression, anxiety , and panic dis order, but that th ese severe im pa irments , si ng ly or in co m bi na ti on , di d n otm eetor e qu al an y of t he li st in gs . Af ter discussing W ind’s a lleged lim itations and m edications, the AL J found th at W ind ha d m ad e a num

be r of c onf lic tin g st at em en ts a

bout he r da ily a ct ivi tie s and the se ve ri ty

of he r lim itatio ns. T he A L J a lso de te rm ine d th at W ind ’ s su

bj ec tiv e co m pla int s “ far ex ce ed [e d] w ha t c oul d r ea sona bly be e xpe ct ed

in lig ht o f the objec tive finding s.” In discussi ng thi s last poin t, the A LJ e xplained th at (1) ther e9

w er e no o bj ec tiv e fi ndi ngs supp ortin g he r co m pla int s of c hr oni c pa in; and (2) although Wind w as obese and had hy pertension, “ there [w as] no ind ication that these im pairm ents lim it[ed] her to less than m edium exertion,” and “ [h] er prim ary lim itations [w ere] m ental.” The A LJ discussed that Dr. Cooper, as a consulting phy sician, had exam ined W ind in August 199 9, and that W ind had in form ed him that she was having two or three panic attacks per day . Ne vertheless, the A LJ deter m ined that th i s s t a t e men twa s i n“ s h ar p c o n tr a s t ” wi th as t a t e men tWi n dh a dmad e th r e e d ays la te r that Z olo ft

w as e ff ec tiv e in tre at ing he r panic a tta ck s, and w ithhe r state m en ts to Dr. Cooper that her panic attac ks had becom e less fre quent and less intense than

“previousl y

when she w as not taking m edications.” T he AL J noted, as w ell, that W ind ’ s c re dib ili ty

w as a t i ssu e be ca

use , a lth oughW ind

tol d D r. Jave llanain January 200 0, that sh e w as suf

fe ri ng c hr oni c ba ck

pa in, D r. D eL aR osa ’ s r ec or ds fr om that pe ri od d id n ot s howany r ef er en ce to suc h pa in c om

pla int s or to re le vant m edications. Moreover, the AL J generally discussed th at D r. Cooper had de te rm ine d th at

W ind ha d sy m pto m s r el at ing to he r m en ta l he al th l im itatio ns, but he be li ev edth atW in d was res po nd in g wel l t o t reat m en t. T he A L J th ene xam ine d th e tw o m en ta l he al th a sse ssm en ts c om ple te d by D r. Jave llana . T he A L J c onc lud ed that, a lth oughD r. Jave llana ’ s de te rm inatio n10

that W ind w as “ una ble to m ai nta in w ork w ith out f urthe r sta bil iz at ionand re habil itatio n” w as , in ef fe ct , af ind ing of “ dis ab ili ty , ” thi s f

ind ing w as not

bin din g on the AL J, pursuant to 20 C.F. R. §§ 40 4.1527(e), 416.927 (e). T he AL J further de te rm ine d th at , be ca

use D r. Jave llana ’ s la st e xam inatio n of W ind w as in Apr il 2000 , and b ec au se D r. Jave llana ’ s no te s f ro m that m ee tin g w er e ge ne ra lly co nsi ste nt w iththe Jun e as se ssm en t, the re w as ne ith er e vid en ce to supp ort the Sep te m be r as se ss m en t, n orto ex pl ai n t he “ dr am at ic di ffer en ce i n t he two as se ssm en ts. ” T hus, the A L J c onc lud ed : [T ] here is no reason to believe that the Septem ber evaluation was anythi ng o the r than an a

be rr at ion , ba se d onate m por ar y e xa ce rb at ion of sym ptom s. T hey

are not expected to conti nue at that level for m ore than asho rt

pe ri od o f tim e. T he re fo re , the S ep te m be r as se ssm en t i s given lit tle we ight. The June assessm ent appears to provide a m ore ac curate e va luatio n of

the c la im an t’ s li m itatio ns. The A LJ a lso stated th at the opinio ns of the state agency phy sicians wer e co ns is te ntwit h a ndlen t fu rth er s up po rt t o t he Ju ne ass es sm en t. Ba se d onthe se c re dib ili ty f ind ing s, the A L J de te rm ine d th at W ind c oul d no t return t o h er p as t re le va ntworkas anu rs in g a ss is ta ntor a s a h om e at te nd an t. H o w e v e r , r e l yi n g o nth e V E ’s t e s t i mo n y t h a ts o me o n e w i th Wi n d ’s s a me re str ic tio ns c oul d pe rf

orm suc h w ork a s alaundr

y w orke r an d ahand p ac ka ge r, the AL J determ ined that W ind coul d perform j obs th at existed in sig nificant num bers11

in th e n at io na l ec on omy . Thu s, t he ALJ co nc lu de d t ha t Win d was no t d is ab le d. W ind appe al ed to the Appe al s C ounc il, w hic h is sue d ade nia l of r eque st f or re vie w . W ind

sub se que ntl y

f ile d ac ivi l a ct ionin the dis tr ic t c ourt and a supp orting brief, r aising th e sam e issues as on appeal. T he m agistrate j udge iss ued a r ep o rt , r ec o m

m en d i n g th at th e A LJ ’s d ec i s i o nb e a ff i rmed . Ov erWin d ’s obj ec tio ns, the dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed thi s r ec om

m en da tio n. W ind ge ne ra lly arg ue s th at

the A L J’ s de ci sio n no t t o gr an t be ne fi ts w as not supp orted by

subst antial evidence. The social sec urity regulations establi sh a fivestep evaluation process, which is us ed to determ ine both DI B and SSI claim s. S ee Ph ill ips v. Barnhart , 357 F . 3d 1 232, 123 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . U nde r thi s e va luatio n process, the A LJ m

ust determ ine: (1) is the indivi dual perform ing su bstantial gainful activity ; (2) does she have a severe im pairm ent; (3) does she have a severe im pairm ent that m eets or equals a [ listed im pairm ent] ; (4) if not, can she perfor m her past rele vant work; and (5) based on her age, education, and wor k experience, can sh e p erfo rm

ot he r work o f th e so rt f

ou ndinth e n at io na l ec on omy . Id. Ourrev ie w in a So ci al Secu rit y cas e is th e sa m e as th atof t he di st ric t co ur t. Miles v. Chater , 84 F. 3d 13 97, 1400 (11t h Cir. 1996 ). W e have explained that [W e] m ust r ev ie wthe a ge nc y ’ s de ci sio n and d et er m ine w he the r [the agency ’ s] conclusion , a s a w hole, w as suppo rted by subst antial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is som ething m ore thanAlthough Phillips cites to § 404.1520(c), the r egulation applicable f or DI B be nefits, and 4 this appeal involves 20 C.F.R. § 404.920(c ), the re gulation applicable f or SSIbenef

its, we have 12 a mer e s ci n t i l l a, b u tl es s th an a p re p o n d er an ce . If th e C o m m i s s i o n er ’s d e c i s i o ni s s up p o rt e db y s ub s t an t i a l e v i d e n c e , th i s C o u rtmu s ta f f i rm, ev enif the pr oof pr ep onde rate s a ga ins t i t. W e m ay not de ci de f ac ts an ew , r ew ei gh the e vid en ce , or sub sti tut e our

j udgm en t f

or that of the Com m issio ner. D y er v. Barnhart , 395 F . 3d 1 206, 121 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( int er na l qu otatio ns and
m arks om itted). a. Wheth er t he A lJ erred in failing to de term ine th at Wind suf fere d from the severe im pairm ent of obesity As a prelim inary

m atter, W ind argues that the AL J erre d in no t finding that W ind e sta bli she d th at

she suf fe re d f ro m the se ve re im

pa irm en t of

obe sity . W ind asserts that, at a height of 5'5, her lowest w eight, 223 po unds , c onsti tuted Level II obesity , and her we ight at the adm inistrative hearing, 245 po unds , c onsti tuted
m orbi d o be si ty. A t the se co nd s te p of

the se que nti al -d isa

bil ity de te rm inatio n, the A L J m ust

“ co nsi de r the m ed ic al se ve ri ty of [ the c la im an t’ s] im

pa irm en ts. ” P hil lip s, 357 F. 3d at 12 37 ( quot ing 20 C . F. R. § 40 4. 1520 (a )( 4) (i i) ). I n do ing so, the A L J m ust de te rm ine w he the r the im pa irm en ts, a lon e or

in co m bin at ion , “ sig nif

ic an tly li m it” the c la im an t’ s “phy sic al or m en ta l a bil ity to do b as ic w ork sk ill s. ” P hil lip s, 357 F. 3d at 12 37 ( ci tin g 20 C. F. R. § 40 4. 1520 (c )) . A n im pa irm en t sh oul d be 4c on c lud e d th at th e se re gulatio ns inv olv e the same se qu e nti a l e va luatio n p ro c e ss a nd , th us , s ho uld be ana ly zed in the same wa

y . See McD aniel v. B owen, 800 F .2d 1026, 1031 n.4 (11th Cir. 1986). 13 co nsi de re d “ not

se ve re ” onl y

if “ it is a sli ght abnor m al ity w hic h ha s su cha m ini m al e ff

ec t onthe ind ivi dua l tha t i t w oul d no t be e xpe ct ed to int er fe re w iththe indiv idual’s a

bilityto work, irrespec tive of age, education or work experience .” Br idg es v. Bo w en , 815 F . 2d 6 22, 625 ( 11th C ir . 198 7) ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ); se e al so McDa ni el , 80 0 F .2dat 1 03 1 (d efi ni ng cla im an t’s b ur de n a s m il d) . Howev er, a dia gnos is o r a m er e show ing of “ a de viatio n f

ro m pur el y m ed ic al standard s of bodi ly pe rf ec tio n or nor m al ity ” is i nsuf

fi ci en t; ins te ad , the c la im an t m ust sho wthe ef fe ct of the im pa irm en t onhe r ab ili ty

to w ork. Mc Cr

ute r v. Bo w en , 791 F . 2d 1544 , 1547 (11th Cir. 1986). Inthe ins tant c as e, W ind

is ar gui ng tha t the A L J e rr ed in not inc lud ing obe sit y in its li st o f he r se ve re im pa irm en ts. A ssum ing that W ind ’ s w ei ght f el l within the applicable definitio n, obesity shoul d be consid ered, am ong o ther im pairm ents, beca

use it can cause further degradation of a claim ant’ s phy sical ca pa ci ty , e spe ci al ly

in the pr es en ce of

c er ta in i m pa irm en ts. S ee S oc ia l S ec ur ity Ru lin g 02 -1 p. H ow ev er , a s th e A L J e xpl ai ne d inhis de ci sio n, the r ec or d c ont ai ns no e vid en ce sho w ing that W ind ’ s ob es ity a ff ec te d he r ab ili ty

to pe rf orm m ed ium
w ork- re la te d a ct ivi tie s. T hus, the A L J di d no t e rr in co nc lud ing that this14

im pa irm en t w as “ se ve re . ” S ee Mc Cr ute r, 791 F . 2d at 15 47; se e al so W ils on v . Apfe l, 179 F. 3d 12 76, 1278 (11t h Cir. 1999 ) (c onclud ing th at substant ial evidence supp orte d th e A L J’ s f

ind ing that the c la im an t’ s oc ca sio na l e pis ode s of ho sp it al iz at io n fo r si ck le cel l an em iadi d n otde m on st rat e a “ se ve re” i m pa irment) . b. Wh et he r th e A LJe rr ed in f ail in g t o p ro pe rl y e val ua te an d w ei gh evidenc e W ind a lso arg ue s th at

the A L J e rr ed

in fa ili ng t o gi ve appr opr ia te w ei ght to D r. Jave llana ’ s S ep te m

be r 2000 a sse ssm en t, w hic h sh ow ed that sh e co uld

not en ga ge in any

sub stanti al ga inf

ul e m plo ym en t. W ind

c ont en ds tha t, in re

j ec tin g the S ep te m

be r 2000 a sse ssm en t, the A L J “ cl earl y e xc ee d[ ed ] his e xpe rt ise and ac t[ ed ] a s am ed ic al e xpe rt a s w el l a s aj udge . ” W ind arg ue s th at , be ca

use it is dif fi cu lt to e va luate m en ta l i m pa irm en ts, the A L J sh oul d have de fe rr ed to the opi nio ns o f D r. Jave llana , w ho w as both apsy ch ia tr ist and the onl y

tr eatin g phy sician who com

pleted m ental RFC assessm ents. More over, W ind asserts that Dr . J av el l an a’s Se p t emb er2 0 0 0 fi n d i n g s we re co rr o b o ra t edb y Dr . C o o p er ’s report, and that the AL J erre d in failing to state w hat weight he had assigned Dr. Co op er’s o pi ni on . To th e e x t en tWin di s ch al l en g i n g th e A LJ ’s ev al u at i o no f D r. J av el l an a’s Se pte m be r 2000 a sse ssm en t, in de te rm ini ng whe the r anind ivi dua l i s di sa ble d, “ the15

te sti m ony of atr eatin g ph y sic ian m

ust be giv ensub stanti al or

c onsi de ra

ble w ei ght unless ‘good cause’ is shown to th e contrary .” Crawf ord v. Com

m ’ r of S ocial Security , 363 F. 3d 11 55, 1159 (11t h Cir. 2004 ) (quotation om itted). M oreover, the A L J c om

m its e rr or if he sub sti tut es his own un inf orm ed m ed ic al e va luatio ns fo r tho se of

ac la im an t’ s tr eatin g ph y sic ians a bse nt g ood ca

use , G ra ham v. Bo w en , 786 F. 2d 1 113, 111 5 ( 11th C ir . 198 6) , or if he f ai ls t o art ic ulate c le ar ly

his r ea son fo r ac co rd ing thi s e vid en ce le ss w ei ght , Ma cG re gor v. Bo w en , 786 F . 2d 1 050, 1053 (11th Cir. 1986). N ev er the le ss, goo d c au se to dis cr ed it a tr eatin g ph y sic ian’ s op ini on o n dis ab ili ty or ina bil ity to w ork e xis ts whe re the doc tor ’ s op ini on i s no t su ppor te d by the e vid en ce , is inc onsi ste nt w iththe phy sic ian’ s own m ed ic al r ec or ds, or m er el y is co nc lu so ry . Lewis v. Ca ll ah an , 12 5 F .3d14 36 , 14 40 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ).

“ [C] hoos ing between conflicting evidence is a task particularly suited to th e fa ct fi nde r. ” L an dr

y v. H ec kle r, 782 F . 2d 1 551, 155 4 ( 11th C ir . 198 6) . I nde ed , “ [t ] he co m m iss ion er m ay r ej ec t the opi nio n of

any phy sic ian whe n th e ev ide nc e supp orts a contrary

conclusion .” Bloodsworth v. He ckler, 703 F.2d 1233 , 1240 (11th Cir. 1983 ). He re, in a m ental RFC assessm ent Dr . Javellana com pleted on Septem

ber 11, 200 0, D r. Jave llanaopi ne d th at W ind onl y suf fe re d f ro m am ode rate li m itatio n16

in her social functionin g, concentration, persistence, and pace. Moreover, Dr . Javellana determ ined that W ind su ffer ed from m arked re strictions in her ac tivities of daily living , her

ability to respond to supervisio n in a work setting, and her ability to perform

repetitive tasks in a work setting. D r. Javellana also opined th at W ind’s c urrent G AD wa s 50 to 5 5, and that W ind was “ unable to m aintain work without further stabilization and rehabilit ation.” H ow ev er , in D r. Jave llana ’ s June 200 0 a sse ssm en t, she c onc lud ed that W ind ha d on ly m ode rate r es tr ic tio ns i n: h er a ct ivi tie s of

da ily li vin g; h er

c onc en tr at ion , persistence, and pace; her a bilityto und erstand, c arry out, and rem em

ber instructio ns in a work setting; and h er a bilityto respond to coworker s in a work setting andperform

sim ple and repetitive tasks. D r. Javellana’ s conclusio n in her Septem ber 2000 assessm ent that W ind on ly suffere d a m oderate lim itation in her soc ia l f unc tio nin g a lso ine xpl ic ab ly w as c ontra dic te d by

he r de te rm inatio n inJun e 2 0 0 0 , t h at Win dh ada mark edl i m i t at i o ni nth i s ar ea . In ad d i t i o n , Dr . J av el l an a’s tr eatm en t no te s, f

ro m May 199 9 th ro ugh Apr il 2000 , r ef le ct ed that, a lth oughW ind wa s suffering from

dy sthym ic disorder, depre ssion , and from anxiety , she w as being treated with Z oloft and her m ental status rem ained generally unchanged. In fact, in April 2000, Dr . Javellana noted th at W ind was pleasant and cooperative, re m ai ne d ve rb al and l ogi ca l, de nie d de lus ion s or paranoi a, onl y

w as m ild lyWe note, howeve r, that, as the Commissioner conc edes, the Commi ssioner has de clined 5 to endorse the GAF scale for “ use in the Social Secur ity and SSIdisability

prog rams,” a

nd has indicated that GA F sc ores ha ve no “dir ect c orre lation to the severity require ments of the mental disorders listings.” See 65 F ed. Reg . 50746, 50764-65 (Aug . 21, 2000). 17 an xio us and d ep re sse d, w as c om pe te nt t o gi ve inf

orm ed c onse nt f or tr eatm en t, and ha d aG A F sc or e re fl ec tin g m ode rate sy m pto m s. 5 Furtherm ore, Dr . Javellana’ s Septem ber 2000 assessm ent was c ontradicted by W ind’s own statem ents to the exam ining phy sicians that she vo lunteered at her chur ch , str ai ght en ed

the hou se , pe rf

orm ed hou se hol d c hor es , m ad e handi cr af ts, pa int ed , vis ite d y ar d sa le s, r ea d, and w at ch ed te le vis ion . S ee Ma ci a v. Bo w en , 829 F. 2d 1 009, 101 2 ( 11th C ir . 198 7) ( the A L J m ay c onsi de r a cl ai m an t’ s da ily ac tiv iti es w he n e va luatin g he r subj ec tiv e co m pla int s and d et er

m ini ng the iss ue of RF C) . B ec au se D r. Jave llana ’ s c onc lus ion s inhe r Se pte m be r 2000 a sse ssm en t we re i n co n s i s t en tan dn o ts up p o rt edfu l l y b y h ero wn tre at m en tn o t es , t h e A LJ ’s de te rm inatio n th at

thi s a sse ssm en t—

w hic h w as c om

ple te d a ppr oxi m at el y

f ive
m onth s after

her last visit with W ind—was not entitled to significant weight was supp or te d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. See Lewis , 12 5 F .3dat 1 44 0. To the extent W ind also is arguing that the ALJ e rred in fa iling to state what weig hthe ga ve to Dr. Coo pe r’s op in io n a s a c on su lt in g p hysic ia n, t he ALJ dis cu sse d th at

D r. Co ope r, a s ac onsu lti ng p hy sic ian, ha d e xam ine d W ind in18

A ugus t 19 99, and h ad

be lie ve d th at

W ind w as r es pond ing w el l t o tr eatm en t but co nti nue d to have som e sym pto m s. T he A L J a lso dis cu sse d th at W ind ha d to ld Dr . C ooper that her panic attacks had becom e less fre quent and less intense than

“pr ev iou sly

w he n sh e w as not

takin g m ed ic at ion s. ” A lth oughthe A L J di d no t expli ci tly state that he w as f

ind ing c re dib le D r. Co ope r’ s a sse ssm en t, thi s de te rm inatio n w as im

pli ci t f ro m his r el ianc e on D r. Co ope r’ s op ini on i n concludin g both that W ind’s subje ctive com plaints were not fully

cre dible and th at D r. Jave llana ’ s June 200 0 a sse ssm en t w as m or e ac curate than he r Se pte m be r 2000 as se ssm en t. S ee D y er , 395 F . 3d at 12 10 ( al tho ugh a cr ed ibi lity de te rm inatio n

“ m ust be obv ious to the review ing court,” w e do not require “ an explicit findin g as to cred ib il it y ”). In addition , a lthou gh Dr. Cooper noted that W ind’s m ental conditio n was

“ guard ed , ” an d th at

she w oul d be ne fi t f

ro m r ec ei vin g in div idu al psy ch oth er ap y to supp le m en t he r m ed ic at ion , his f ind ing s a s to he r m en ta l st at us w er e sim ilar to tho se c ont ai ne d inD r. Jave llana ’ s Apr il 2000 r ep ort and h er Jun e 2000 assessm ent. I ndeed, in finding th at D r. Javellana’ s June 20 00 assessm ent was m ore cr edible, the A LJ noted, a lbeit in a concluso ry fashion, that this findin g was supp or te d b y

th e o pi ni on of t he st at e ag en cy co ns ul ti ng ph y si ci an s. Th us , th e ALJ out lin ed his r ea sons f

or m ak ing c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio n, inc lud ing giv ing w ei ght19

to Dr. Cooper’ s assessm ent and findin g not credible Dr. Javellana’ s Septem ber 2000 a sse ssm en t, and b ec au se the se r ea sons w er e ba se d onobj ec tiv e ev ide nc e, the A L J’ s de ci sio n w as sup porte d by sub stanti al e vid en ce in the r ec or d. S ee L ew is, 12 5 F .3dat 1 44 0. c. Wheth er t he A LJ erre d in f ailing to recontactDr . Javellana W ind arg ue s th at , ins te ad

of gue ssi ng why

D r. Jave llana ’ s S ep te m

be r 2000 as se ssm en t di ff

er ed f ro m he r pr ev iou s a sse ssm en t, the A L J ha d th e duty to re co nta ct thi s e xpe rt

f or c lari fi catio n. “ It

is w el l- es ta

bli she d th at

the A L J ha s a ba sic duty

to de ve lop af

ull and f ai r re co rd . ” E lli son v. Barnhart , 355 F . 3d 1 272, 1276 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ( ci tin g 20 C. F. R. § 41 6. 912( d) ); se e al so G raham v. Apf el , 129 F. 3d 1 420, 142 2 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) ( expla ini ng tha t a he ar ing be fo re an A L J is not an a dve rs ar ia l pr oc ee din g) . I nde ed , the A L J m ust de ve lop the f

ac ts f ull y and fairly and probe conscientio usly for all the r elevant inform ation, even w here a cl ai m an t i s r ep re se nte d by c ouns el . Co w ar

t v. S ch w ei ke r, 662 F . 2d 7 31, 735 ( 11th Ci r. 19 81 ). Mor eo ve r, it

is re ve rs ibl e er

ro r fo r anA L J no t t o or de r a co nsul ta tiv e ex am in at io n wh en su ch an ev al ua ti on is ne ces sa ry to m ak e an in fo rm edde ci si on . Re ev es v. H ec kle r, 734 F . 2d 5 19, 522 n. 1 ( 11th C ir . 198 4) . A n A L J, how ev er , is not required to seek additi onal ind ependent expert m edical testim ony before20

m aking a disabi lity

determ ination if the re cord is sufficient and additio nal expert te st im on y is un ne ces sa ry . See Wils on , 17 9 F .3dat 1 27 8. A s di sc uss ed

above , W ind

ge ne ra lly c ont en ds tha t, ins te ad

of gue ssi ng at a re as on f or the inc onsi ste nc ie s inD r. Jave llana ’ s tw o a sse ssm en ts, the A L J sh oul d have r ec ont ac te d D r. Jave llanato cl ar if y w hic h of he r fi ndi ngs gave r ise to thi s inc onsi ste nc y . H ow ev er , the r ec or d do es not r ef le ct that D r. Jave llanae xam ine d,
m uc h le ss m ad e any

a ddi tio na l f

ind ing s, be tw ee n he r as se ssm en ts i n June and Septem ber 2000. Moreover, W ind failed to produ ce evidence showing that it was necessary for the A LJ to order anoth er e valuation before m aking hi s decision. See E lli son, 355 F . 3d at 12 76 ( “ the c la im an t be ar s th e bur de n of pr ovi ng tha t [ s] he is disabled, and, consequently , [ s] he is responsib le for producing evidence in sup port of [he r] clai m ”). Thu s, t he co ur t d idno t err in no t re co nt act in g Dr. J av el la na . d. Wheth er t he A LJ posed a pr oper h ypothet ical question t o the vocational expert L as t, W ind

arg ue s th at

the A L J e rr ed

in re ly ing on the V E ’ s op ini on i n de te rm ini ng h er

RF C b ec au se the A L J f

ai le d to a sk the V E ahy

pothe tic al que sti on that c om pr eh en siv el y

de sc ri be d he r voc at ion al sit ua tio n. W ind

spe ci fi ca lly contends that, in posing this hy poth etical question, the AL J’ s wording (1) w as co nf us in g; (2) di d n otrefl ectth e se ve rit y of Win d’s i m

pa irments , eve n a s t he ALJ21

fo und the m

to ex ist ; and ( 3) w as not

sup porte d by

the m ed ic al e vid en ce . W ind also asserts that, this error wa s not harm less because, had the VE been inform ed that W ind had “ m oderate” lim itations , instead of “ m ild to m oderate” or a “ lim ited bu t s at is fact ory ” ab il it y

to work , th e VE m ay

ha ve res po nd eddi ffer en tl y . If ac la im an t i s un ab le to do p as t r el ev an t w ork, a s w as the c as e he re , “ the ex am ine r pr oc ee ds t o th e fi fth and f ina l st ep of

the e va luatio n pr oc es s to de te rm ine
w he the r in l igh t of

the [ RF C] , a ge , e duc at ion , and w ork e xpe ri en ce the c la im an t can perf orm other work. ” W ilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 121 9, 1227 (11th Cir. 2002 ). W e furthe r expla ine d inW ils on: T he A L J m

ust art ic ulate spe ci fi c j obs that the c la im an t i s a ble to perform , and thi s finding m ust be sup ported by

subst antial evidence, nor m er e int uit ionor c onj ec tur e. I f non- ex er

tio na l i m pa irm en ts e xis t, the A L J m ay

use Me dic al -V oc at ion al G uid el ine s a s af ram ew ork to ev al ua te voc at ion al f

ac tor s, but

m ust a lso intro duc e ind ep en de nt ev ide nc e, pr ef

er ab ly thr ougha[ V E ’ s] te sti m ony , of e xis te nc e of

j obs in th e n at io na l ec on omy

th atth e cl ai m an t ca n p erfo rm . Id . ( int er na l c itatio ns o m itt ed ). Mo re ove r, a s bo th p ar tie s a gr ee , “ fo r a [V E ’ s] testim ony to constit ute subs tantial evidence, the A LJ m ust po se a hy

poth etical qu es ti on whi ch co m

pr is es all of t he cla im an t’s i m pa irments .” Id . In arguing that the AL J posed im proper hy poth etical questions , W ind cites to P en dle y

v. H ec kle r, 767 F . 2d 1 561 (1 1thCi r. 198 5) . I n P en dle y , w e ex am ine d a ca s e i n v o l v i n g a h ypo th et i ca l qu es t i o ni nwh i ch th e A LJ d es cr i b edth e c l ai m an t ’s22

phy sic al im

pa irm en t, but

did not a sk the e xpe rt

to as sum e the c la im an t’ s anxi ety or de pr es sio n, both of

w hic h th e A L J f

ound to be “ se ve re im

pa irm en ts l im iti ng the cl ai m an t’ s a

bil ity to w ork. ” P en dle y , 767 F . 2d at 15 62. W e re ve rs ed and rem an de d, b as edon ou r de te rm in at io n t ha t we co ul d n otass um e th atth e VE
w oul d have giv enthe sam e an sw er ha d th e A L J in str

uc te d hi m to co nsi de r al l of the appe llant’ s se ve re im pa irm en ts. I d. a t 15 63. In the instant case, the A LJ sim ilarly determ ined that the claim ant suffere d fr om , a m ong oth er

se ve re im

pa irm en ts, de pr es sio n and anxi ety . H ow ev er , unl ike the f ac ts i n P en dle y , the A L J in str uc te d th e V E in his f

ir st h y pothe tic al que sti on t o as sum e that W ind

ha d “psy ch olo gic al and e m oti ona l pr obl em s th at [ w oul d] br ing he r to a li m ite d bu t satis fa ct or

y , am ild to m ode rate de sc ri pti on o f he r ab ili ty to p er fo rm [c er t ai nwo rkt as k s ].” Mo re o v er , d es p i t e t h at th e A LJ fo u n dth at Win d ’s re le vant m en ta l l im itatio ns w er e “ m ode rate , ” his use of the w or ds “ lim ite d bu t s at i s fa ct o ry” a n d“ m i l dt o m o d er at e” d i d n o tm i s -c h ar ac t er i ze th e d eg re e o f Wi n d ’s
m en ta l l im itatio ns. A s di sc uss ed above , the Jun e 2000 a sse ssm en t onw hic h th e A L J r el ie d inde te rm ini ng tha t W ind ha d “ m ode rate ” re str ic tio ns s pe ci fi ca lly de fi ne d “ m ode rate ” re str ic tio ns a s “ anim pa irm en t whic h a ff

ec ts b ut d oe s no t preclude the ability

to function.”23

Furthe rm or e, in posi ng h is s ec ond hy pothe tic al que sti on, the A L J e xpl ic itl y dis tin gui she d be tw ee n “ m ode rate ” an d “ m ar ke d” li m itatio ns and e sta

bli she d th at , if W ind ’ s m en ta l l im itatio ns w er e “ m ar ke d, ” she w oul d no t have be enable to pe rf orm any j ob i n th e na tio na l e co nom y . T he A L J, the re fo re , pos ed a hy pothe tic al que sti on tha t a cc ur at el y c om pr ise d a ll of

W ind ’ s im

pa irm en ts. T hus, the AL J properly

relied on the VE ’ s testim ony as substanti al evidence. See W ils on, 284 F . 3d at 12 27 Insum , the A L J di d no t e rr in (1 ) fa ili ng t o de te rm ine that W ind ’ s ob es ity wa s a “ severe im

pairm ent,” (2) evaluating the opin ions o f D r. Javellana and Dr . Co ope r, ( 3) not

r ec ont ac tin g D r. Jave llana , and ( 4) pos ing hy pothe tic al que sti ons to the VE . Ac cordingly , w e conclude that the district court properly determ ined that the AL J’ s decision n ot to grant benefits to W ind was suppo rted by subst antial ev i d en ce . We, t h er ef

o re , a ff i rm th e d i s tri ct co u rt ’s o rd eraf fi rmin g th e A LJ ’s de ci sio n. AFFIRMED.