United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-30262

Summary Calendar

Kimberly Ross, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:20-cv-629

Before Clement, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Kimberly Ross appeals a denial of Social Security disability benefits. 

We AFFIRM. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 28, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30262 Document: 00516526119 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/28/2022
No. 22-30262

2

I

In June 2018, Ross applied for disability benefits, alleging that she had 

been disabled since August 29, 2016. She asserted that she had a tethered 

spinal cord, spinal bifida, diastematomyelia, disturbed sleep, cognitive 

impairments, pain in her back and legs, chronic fatigue, anxiety issues, 

incontinence, and numbness and tingling in her extremities. The Social 

Security Administration denied her claim a few months later.

Ross requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), 

but she fared no better there. The ALJ denied Ross’s claim, finding that 

while the medical record indicated Ross had severe back disorders, Ross 

could nevertheless perform the full range of light work, and could thus 

continue to perform her light or sedentary past relevant work. See 

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b). The ALJ also denied Ross’s 

subsequent motion to reconsider. Ross asked the Appeals Council to review, 

but it declined to do so, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the 

Commissioner. 

Ross appealed to the district court. The court, after recommendation 

of a magistrate judge but upon full review of the record, found for the 

Commissioner. It explained that the Commissioner did not violate Ross’s 

right to due process; that the ALJ properly found that Ross lacked severe 

lumbar, thoracic, or cervical impairments; and that the ALJ did not abuse its 

discretion in how it represented and relied upon the opinions of Ross’s 

doctors, statements she made to those doctors, or her course of treatment. 

She now seeks our review.

II

But our review is limited. We look only to whether “the final decision 

[of the Commissioner] is supported by substantial evidence” and whether 

Case: 22-30262 Document: 00516526119 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/28/2022
No. 22-30262

3

“the Commissioner used the proper legal standards to evaluate the 

evidence.” Whitehead v. Colvin, 820 F.3d 776, 779 (5th Cir. 2016) (per 

curiam) (quotations and citation omitted). We only find a Commissioner’s 

decision unsupported by substantial evidence when “no credible evidentiary 

choices or medical findings support the decision.” Id. (quotations and 

citation omitted). The decision must rest on “more than a scintilla [of 

evidence], but it need not be a preponderance.” Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 

558, 564 (5th Cir. 1995) (quotations and citation omitted). 

Ross argues that the ALJ erred in two ways. First, says Ross, the ALJ 

failed to consider all relevant evidence. Ross points to scientific literature 

she submitted, as well as certain comments made by Ross’s doctors, that 

went undiscussed in the ALJ’s ultimate opinion. But as we have noted time 

and again, an “ALJ is not always required to do an exhaustive point-by-point 

discussion” of the evidence he reviews. Audler v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446, 448 

(5th Cir. 2007). The ALJ here explained that his findings came only “[a]fter 

careful consideration of the entire record . . . .” Just because the ALJ did not 

mention Ross’s proffered literature or any specific physician commentary 

“does not necessarily mean that he failed to consider [them],” Hammond v. 

Barnhart, 124 F. App’x 847, 851 (5th Cir. 2005), especially where, as here, 

he wrote that he did. We find no error. 

Second, Ross contends that the ALJ took other evidence out of context. 

She first faults the ALJ for noting that one of her doctors wrote “that [her 

MRI] results were interesting but did not explain her pain syndrome.” Ross 

takes this to insinuate that the ALJ believes doctors failed to determine a 

cause for her pain, something she claims untrue. But the doctor did make 

that note, and the ALJ saying so isn’t a misrepresentation. And elsewhere, 

the ALJ agrees with Ross’s argued diagnosis, noting that “[t]he objective 

medical evidence supports a finding that . . . [Ross] had limitations due to her 

tethered spinal cord and diastematomyelia.” 

Case: 22-30262 Document: 00516526119 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/28/2022
No. 22-30262

4

Next, Ross challenges the ALJ’s claim that she “did not have the sort 

of treatment that one would expect from an individual with disabling pain.” 

She saw eight doctors, says Ross, and underwent months of physical therapy 

and trials of medications. But the ALJ doesn’t disagree—he acknowledges 

that she saw multiple doctors, underwent physical therapy, and tried 

medication. What Ross seems to want is for the ALJ to have weighed that 

evidence differently and concluded her course of treatment was more 

involved. But that is not for us to say—we do not reweigh the evidence. See 

Garcia v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 700, 704 (5th Cir. 2018) (“We will not re-weigh 

the evidence nor, in the event of evidentiary conflict or uncertainty, will we 

substitute our judgment for the Commissioner’s, even if we believe the 

evidence weighs against the Commissioner’s decision.” (quotations and 

citation omitted)). 

After that, Ross disputes the ALJ’s assertion that surgery was not 

recommended, claiming she was recommended surgery. Missing from her 

argument, however, is who recommended it. She points first to the fact that 

Dr. Greenfield gave her the option of surgery. But an option is not a 

recommendation—the record does not support that Greenfield advised Ross 

to get surgery. Ross’s second doctor, Dr. Soleau, also does not seem to have 

recommended surgery. He wrote that he believed “the risk of surgical 

treatment of this process far outweighs the benefit.” Nor does her third 

doctor, Dr. Sigler, appear to have recommended surgery. Though he writes 

that Ross “has been recommended to have surgery,”—seemingly referring 

to a recommendation by a different doctor—he notes that he has little

experience with this condition and is “skeptical [that] surgery would help 

significantly with [Ross’s] pain.” All told, that the ALJ believed this record 

summed to the conclusion that Ross was not recommended surgery is not 

error. Rather, it was supported by significant evidence and lay within the

Case: 22-30262 Document: 00516526119 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/28/2022
No. 22-30262

5

ALJ’s discretion to resolve evidentiary conflicts. See Selders v. Sullivan, 914 

F.2d 614, 617 (5th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). 

Ross next disagreesthat while she sought treatment for her symptoms, 

she “contemporaneous[ly]” informed doctors that she valued exercise and 

would continue to do it as best she could. Ross argues that these statements 

were months before her ultimate diagnosis, and that she ultimately had to 

reduce the exercise she could do. Maybe so, but the ALJ was not wrong that 

during the period under review, Ross told her doctors that she was doing 

yoga, got some symptomatic relief through exercise, and would continue to 

walk (even if that was all she could manage). Saying so is not 

misrepresentation. 

To sum up, the ALJ did not misrepresent the record and committed 

no error. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-30262 Document: 00516526119 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/28/2022