Court Opinion

ID: 9408991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 16:01:14.593887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.211763
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-14103    Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/14/2023    Page: 1 of 22

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 21-14103
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        JOHNNY BRETT GREGORY,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellant,
        versus
        COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

                                                     Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 4:21-cv-00060-WEJ
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-14103        Document: 42-1        Date Filed: 07/14/2023        Page: 2 of 22

        2                         Opinion of the Court                     21-14103

        Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Johnny Brett Gregory, proceeding pro se on appeal, appeals
        a magistrate judge’s order affirming the Commissioner of the
        Social Security Administration’s (“Commissioner”) denial of his
        application for supplemental security income (“SSI”). He argues
        that substantial evidence did not support (1) the administrative law
        judge’s (“ALJ”) finding that he did not meet or equal Listing 12.15
        for Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders and (2) the ALJ’s
        determination of his residual functional capacity (“RFC”).1 For the
        following reasons, we affirm.
                                     I.      Background
               In November 2019, Gregory applied for SSI, under Title XVI
        of the Social Security Act, alleging that his disability, post-traumatic
        stress disorder (“PTSD”), began on July 19, 2019. His initial
        application was denied. He sought reconsideration, again claiming
        PTSD as his disability but adding “anxiety” and “emotional feelings
        of stress and debilitating depression.” This renewed request was
        also denied. Then, Gregory requested a hearing and appeared

        1 Gregory has also moved to reassign this case to a different judge on remand.
        Because we conclude, however, that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s
        findings and affirm, we need not decide this matter. Accordingly, we DENY
        Gregory’s motion.
USCA11 Case: 21-14103     Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 07/14/2023    Page: 3 of 22

        21-14103              Opinion of the Court                       3

        before an ALJ in October 2020. The ALJ admitted Gregory’s
        medical records, which included the following.
              A.     Medical Records
               In a mental status exam in January 2011, Dr. William Corey
        of the Jesup Federal Correctional Institution, where Gregory was
        imprisoned at the time, noted the following. Gregory was alert
        with an appropriate manner and a cooperative attitude. His affect
        showed a normal range, with normal intensity and stability. He
        was oriented by person, place, time, and purpose for the interview,
        his concentration and attention were within normal limits, and he
        showed “no indications of delusional mood or ideas.” Dr. Corey
        concluded that Gregory was “functioning at a high level” and
        experiencing only “situational stress,” so there was no need for a
        follow-up.
               In April 2019, Gregory was examined by Dr. Jessica Malmad.
        Dr. Malmad noted that Gregory’s “only medical problem [was]
        migraines” for which medication “ha[d] been very helpful.”
        Gregory also reported that he had trouble sleeping sometimes
        because he was “so pumped up and excited to be out of prison.”
        Gregory had no physical abnormalities, answered questions
        appropriately, was alert and coherent, and had a normal mood and
        affect. Dr. Malmad noted that other than those issues (the
        migraines and trouble sleeping), Gregory “ha[d] no other specific
        complaints at [that] time.
USCA11 Case: 21-14103     Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 07/14/2023   Page: 4 of 22

        4                     Opinion of the Court               21-14103

               In July 2019, Gregory was seen by licensed professional
        counselor Jill Locklear. Locklear conducted a mental status
        evaluation of Gregory, which indicated the following. Gregory
        was alert and cooperative; he was oriented to person, time,
        situation, and place; his appearance was kempt; his mood was
        euthymic; his speech was normal; his affect was full; his thought
        content was unremarkable; he had no hallucinations; his thought
        processes were logical; his memory was intact; and his insight and
        judgment were fair.
              However, Locklear noted that Gregory reported “feeling
        nervous, trauma reactions, worry/anxiety, not sleeping, paranoia,
        and feeling unsafe.” She also noted that he reported difficulty
        paying attention once or twice a week, feeling easily startled and
        anxious daily, and experiencing nightmares or flashbacks once or
        twice a week. Ultimately, Locklear concluded that Gregory
        “present[ed] with symptoms from incarceration that indicated
        PTSD.” However, Locklear noted that, although Gregory stated
        he was guarded with people, he was not guarded with her and that
        he was “pleasant and motivated to improve his quality of life and
        be happy.”
               In September 2019, Gregory was examined by Dr. Keith
        Wood, whose procedure notes indicated the following. Gregory
        was generally open and cooperative but became closed and
        guarded when speaking about his imprisonment. He was alert and
        oriented; he had clear speech with a normal rate and tone; he had
        an anxious affect and an anxious and depressed mood; he had tight
USCA11 Case: 21-14103      Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 07/14/2023     Page: 5 of 22

        21-14103               Opinion of the Court                        5

        associations, linear thinking, and avoidant thoughts; he was not
        hallucinating, but he was having re-experiences, “more so when
        not being busy;” his attention and memory were within normal
        limits; and he saw himself as adjusting to being out of prison. After
        the fifteen-minute examination, Dr. Wood diagnosed Gregory as
        having PTSD and depression. Dr. Wood planned to refer Gregory
        for individual therapy.
                Later that month, Gregory was examined by physician’s
        assistant Britnay Ferguson, whose procedure notes indicated the
        following. Gregory reported that he was working for a mobile
        pressure washing company seven days a week, for approximately
        sixty-six hours weekly. Gregory stated that he slept in between
        tasks and rarely slept at home, which he attributed to not feeling
        comfortable sleeping when alone. He reported having “great”
        energy since his release from prison and denied irritability.
        Ferguson’s mental evaluation indicated that Gregory’s appearance
        was groomed; his behavior was normal and pleasant; his speech
        was normal; his mood and affect were euthymic and full; his
        associations were tight; his thought processes were future-
        oriented, linear, goal-directed, and well-organized; and he did not
        have any apparent hallucinations, paranoia, delusions, or
        obsessions. Additionally, his judgment and memory were intact;
        he was oriented to person, place, time, and situation; and his
        attention and concentration were within normal limits. Ferguson
        prescribed Zoloft.
USCA11 Case: 21-14103      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/14/2023      Page: 6 of 22

        6                       Opinion of the Court                 21-14103

              In November 2019, Ferguson again examined Gregory.
        Gregory reported that he was fired from his job the previous week
        because of multiple required meetings with his parole officer. His
        mental status evaluation was the same as the September
        examination.
               Gregory’s mother completed a function report in
        November 2019 that indicated Gregory’s disability had the
        following negative effects. He was not alert to danger and had
        intense emotional and physical reactions. He could not “socially
        communicate” and had difficulty sleeping. He was not good at
        following instructions, and he had a short attention span. Although
        he could count change, Gregory could not pay bills, handle a
        savings account, or use a checkbook. However, Gregory had no
        issues with personal care, and he read every day.
               Gregory also completed his own function report in
        December 2019, in which he self-reported the following. He did
        not communicate well with others. He was irritable, tended to be
        easily startled, and unable to control his emotions and outbursts.
        He did not engage in social activities, did not get along with
        authority figures, and had paranoia and anxiety around people.
        However, he simultaneously indicated that he had no problems
        getting along with family, friends, neighbors, or others. He was
        also able to take care of his son, go to the grocery store, do laundry,
        prepare soups, drive, and shop in store and by phone. He was
        taking medication for drowsiness, dizziness, migraines, and
        headaches.
USCA11 Case: 21-14103     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/14/2023    Page: 7 of 22

        21-14103               Opinion of the Court                       7

                In February 2020, Gregory was seen by licensed professional
        counselor Jacyln Hallums, whose procedure notes indicated the
        following. Gregory reported difficulty sleeping, poor appetite,
        difficulty concentrating, racing thoughts, feelings of paranoia, and
        excessive worrying that he was hearing sounds at night. He stated
        that he was having nightmares and flashbacks almost nightly.
        However, Gregory’s mental evaluation was nearly identical to his
        most recent one from November 2019, aside from his mood, which
        was calm. Gregory also reported that he felt “a little bit more
        balanced since starting treatment.”
               Gregory was again seen by Ferguson in March 2020, and her
        procedure notes indicated the following. Ferguson did not increase
        Gregory’s Zoloft dosage because he was “[f]eeling good on 50mg,”
        which he attributed to therapy and having more time to adjust
        being out of prison. He denied having any “bothersome” side
        effects of PTSD, stating, “I think what has really happened is I[
        have] gotten good at patience.” Gregory provided an example of
        successfully navigating a stressful encounter, and he indicated he
        was interested in tapering off of Zoloft within a year of when he
        started taking it. He was negative for agitation, behavioral
        problems, confusion, decreased concentration, dysphoric mood,
        hallucinations, self-injury, sleep disturbance, and suicidal ideas.
        Gregory was not nervous, anxious, or hyperactive. His mental
        status evaluation was nearly identical to his most recent one from
        February 2020, aside from his mood, which was euthymic.
USCA11 Case: 21-14103        Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 07/14/2023        Page: 8 of 22

        8                         Opinion of the Court                      21-14103

               Gregory was evaluated by nurse practitioner Caletha Carter
        in August 2020, and her procedure notes indicated the following.2
        Gregory reported increased depression and anxiety because of the
        pandemic, stated that he had not been sleeping well due to
        nightmares and flashbacks of his prison-related trauma, and
        indicated that he was stressed about his upcoming ALJ hearing. His
        mental status evaluation was nearly identical to his most recent one
        from March 2020, aside from his mood, which was dysphoric.
        Carter increased Gregory’s Zoloft dosage to 100 milligrams and
        prescribed him Prazosin for his nightmares and flashbacks.
               B.      Agency Proceedings
              In January 2020, an examiner issued the initial Disability
        Determination Explanation (“DDE”), which concluded that
        Gregory was not disabled. The examiner reasoned that Gregory’s
        claimed PTSD did not meet the B or C criteria for the “12.15
        Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders” listing. 3 The DDE also

        2 Gregory was evaluated virtually due to COVID-19 restrictions.
        3 Listing 12.15 is the listing for Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders. See
        20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. As outlined below, in order to satisfy the
        severity requirement of Listing 12.15, claimants must be able to show that
        their medically determinable impairment satisfies either the paragraph B or
        paragraph C criteria. See id.
                Under paragraph B, Listing 12.15 may be met by showing one extreme
        or two marked limitations in the following areas of functioning:
        (1) understanding, remembering, or applying information; (2) interacting with
USCA11 Case: 21-14103         Document: 42-1        Date Filed: 07/14/2023        Page: 9 of 22

        21-14103                  Opinion of the Court                               9

        noted that Gregory was able to complete familiar tasks, sustain
        concentration for the completion of important tasks, and relate
        adequately in an appropriate manner. Thus, the examiner
        concluded that Gregory’s impairment was not severe and did “not
        significantly limit [Gregory’s] physical or mental ability to do basic
        work activities.”
               In May 2020, an examiner issued the reconsidered DDE at
        Gregory’s request, which again concluded that Gregory was not
        disabled.
               At the ALJ hearing in October 2020, Gregory’s counsel4
        argued that Gregory lacked the basic mental ability to maintain
        unskilled work, that he had difficulty integrating with others, and
        that he “should be deemed less than sedentary.” 5

        others; (3) concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and (4) adapting or
        managing oneself. Id.
                Under paragraph C, Listing 12.15 may be met by showing that the
        impairment is “serious and persistent,” has lasted for over two years, and that
        both: (1) medical treatment, therapy, support, or a highly structured setting
        diminished the symptoms and signs of the disorder; and (2) the claimant has
        the minimal capacity to adapt to changes in his environment or to demands
        that are not already part of his daily life. Id.
        4 While Gregory was pro se when submitting his initial application and is pro
        se on appeal, he was represented during his ALJ hearing.
        5 A claimant’s RFC to perform work is determined to be at one of the
        following “various functional levels”: “sedentary, light, medium, heavy, [or]
        very heavy.” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2. This RFC is taken into
USCA11 Case: 21-14103         Document: 42-1          Date Filed: 07/14/2023        Page: 10 of 22

        10                          Opinion of the Court                      21-14103

               Gregory then testified as follows. He did not get along well
        with others. He had headaches “every other day, for two or three
        days,” as well as bad mood swings. He was “never aware” and was
        “always in paranoia.” Panic attacks and nightmares prevented him
        from sleeping well. The combination of his migraine and mental
        health issues interfered with his ability to go to work because they
        affected his sleep and ability to report to work. Ultimately, for
        these reasons, he asserted that he could not handle a 40-hour
        workweek.
                However, a vocational expert testified that Gregory could
        still perform his past work as a dump truck driver or pressure
        washer. The vocational expert also testified that several unskilled
        jobs existed in the national economy in significant numbers for a
        hypothetical person with Gregory’s limitations. 6
               Following the hearing, the ALJ found that Gregory was not
        disabled and made the following findings. Gregory had not
        engaged in substantial gainful activity since his application date.
        He had the following severe impairments: headaches, PTSD, and

        account in an ALJ’s determination into a claimant’s “ability to engage in
        substantial gainful activity.” Id.
        6 Specifically, the vocational expert testified that:
                At the medium unskilled occupational base . . . there’s the
                position of a cleaner . . . . At light, there’s the position of a
                sorter . . . . And sedentary, there’s the position of a document
                preparer . . . .
USCA11 Case: 21-14103      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/14/2023     Page: 11 of 22

        21-14103                Opinion of the Court                        11

        “affective and/or anxiety disorders.” However, Gregory did not
        have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or
        medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments—
        specifically, the severity of his impairments did not meet or
        medically equal the Listing 12.15 criteria for two reasons. First, the
        ALJ held that Gregory’s impairments did not satisfy the B criteria
        because (1) Gregory only had a mild limitation in understanding,
        remembering, or applying information; (2) he only had a moderate
        limitation in interacting with others; (3) he only had a mild
        limitation in concentrating, persisting, or maintain pace; and (4) he
        only had a mild limitation in adapting or managing himself.
        Second, the ALJ held that the evidence failed to satisfy the C criteria
        because there was “no evidence of both years of medical treatment,
        mental health therapy, psychosocial support(s), or a highly
        structured setting(s) that [was] ongoing and that diminishe[d] the
        symptoms and signs of [Gregory’s] mental disorder; and marginal
        adjustment, where [Gregory] showed minimal capacity to adapt to
        changes in the environment or to demands” that were not already
        a part of his life.
              The ALJ further determined that Gregory had the RFC to
        perform medium work where he “lifts or carries 50 pounds
        occasionally and 25 pounds frequently, stands or walks for six of
        eight hours during the workday, and sits for six of eight hours
        during the workday. [Gregory] can have no public contact work,
        and no more than occasionally contact with supervisors and/or co-
        employees.”
USCA11 Case: 21-14103     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/14/2023    Page: 12 of 22

        12                     Opinion of the Court                21-14103

               In assessing his RFC, the ALJ acknowledged Gregory’s
        testimony that he had frequent headaches but noted that there was
        no evidence of any hospitalization for migraines and that, in April
        2019, he was assessed with a chronic migraine, but that testing did
        not show any physical abnormalities.
               The ALJ then elaborated on the B criteria as they related to
        the mental component of Gregory’s RFC. First, the ALJ stated that
        Gregory had only mild limitations in understanding, remembering,
        or applying information because he understood and responded
        appropriately during the hearing; he stated in his function report
        that he drove, shopped in stores and by phone and had the ability
        to count change; he presented as coherent in April 2019; he showed
        intact memory in September 2019, and he had an intact memory in
        November 2019. Second, the ALJ determined that Gregory had
        moderate limitations in interacting with others because, although
        he testified to paranoia and a constant irate mood and foul moods
        around people and denied social activities in his function report, he
        also indicated in his function report that he had no problems
        getting along with family, friends, neighbors, or others; he had a
        normal mood and affect in April 2019; he had a euthymic mood,
        cooperative behavior, and full affect in July 2019; he began therapy
        for difficulty handling groups and dealing with past trauma in
        September 2019; he was generally open and cooperative aside from
        discussing his imprisonment; he reported great energy and showed
        a euthymic mood with full affect in another September 2019
        treatment session; he showed a euthymic mood in November 2019
USCA11 Case: 21-14103      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/14/2023     Page: 13 of 22

        21-14103                Opinion of the Court                        13

        despite having been fired from his job; he was cooperative in
        February 2020; he had a euthymic mood and full affect in March
        2020; and he had a full range of mood and affect in August 2020.
        Third, the ALJ concluded that Gregory had mild limitations in his
        ability to concentrate, persist, or maintain pace because he was able
        to concentrate and follow along with the hearing; he was alert and
        oriented in April 2019; he was oriented in July 2019; he had normal
        attention and concentration in September 2019; he was oriented
        and had normal attention and concentration in November 2019
        and March 2020; and he was oriented in August 2020. Fourth, the
        ALJ stated that Gregory had mild limitations in his ability to adapt
        and manage himself because he reported preparing soups, doing
        laundry, driving, and shopping in his function report and had
        shown considerable abilities in obtaining employment after a long
        incarceration.
               Next, the ALJ found that Gregory’s impairments could
        reasonably be expected to cause his symptoms, but concluded that
        his statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting
        effects of those symptoms were not entirely consistent with the
        record evidence. The ALJ reasoned that he had an inconsistent
        work history prior to his onset date, so factors other than severe
        impairments, including his incarceration history, may have
        prevented him from working. The ALJ further stated that he
        worked and earned close to the threshold for substantial gainful
        activity in 2019 and that he stated that he was fired from his last job
        due to required meetings with his parole officer and did not quit
USCA11 Case: 21-14103        Document: 42-1        Date Filed: 07/14/2023     Page: 14 of 22

        14                        Opinion of the Court                    21-14103

        because of his impairments. The ALJ noted again that there was
        no evidence of hospitalizations for migraines and that, importantly,
        Gregory’s mental status examinations generally showed normal
        attention, full orientation, and normal moods. The ALJ added that
        Gregory was able to perform daily life activities.
             Gregory requested a review of the ALJ’s decision, which the
        Appeals Council denied.
               C.      District Court Proceedings
               Proceeding pro se, Gregory filed an amended complaint in
        the district court requesting review of the ALJ’s denial of SSI.
        Gregory submitted a brief in support of his complaint where he
        appeared to argue that substantial evidence did not support the
        ALJ’s finding that his PTSD did not satisfy the criteria for Listing
        12.15 and that the ALJ failed to properly weigh or credit (1) Dr.
        Corey’s assessment; (2) Locklear’s procedure notes; (3) Dr.
        Malmad’s “medical opinion;” (4) Ferguson’s procedure notes; (5)
        Dr. Wood’s “opinion” that Gregory had PTSD; and (6) Gregory’s
        symptom testimony.
               The magistrate judge affirmed the ALJ’s decision.7 First, the
        magistrate judge reasoned that substantial evidence supported the
        ALJ’s findings that Gregory did not meet the B or C criteria of
        Listing 12.15. Second, the magistrate judge stated that, although
        the ALJ credited the various diagnoses set forth in the treatment

        7 The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction.
USCA11 Case: 21-14103     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/14/2023    Page: 15 of 22

        21-14103               Opinion of the Court                       15

        notes, the records from Gregory’s medical providers did little more
        than document his conditions and did not indicate what he could
        or could not do despite his impairments and symptoms. Third, the
        magistrate judge concluded that the ALJ properly discredited
        Gregory’s claim of disabling migraines and mental health
        symptoms based on objective medical evidence and Gregory’s
        testimony regarding his daily activities and properly partially
        credited his assertion that he could not interact with others.
           Gregory timely appealed.
                                   II.    Discussion

               When an 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).
        We review the legal principles underpinning the decision de novo,
        but “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).
               Under the substantial evidence standard, we look to the
        existing administrative record and ask whether it contains sufficient
        evidence to support the ALJ’s factual determinations. Biestek v.
        Berryhill, 139 S. Ct 1148, 1154 (2019). Substantial evidence is “more
        than a mere scintilla” and means “such relevant evidence as a
        reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
        conclusion.” Id. (quotations omitted).
USCA11 Case: 21-14103        Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 07/14/2023        Page: 16 of 22

        16                         Opinion of the Court                      21-14103

               Importantly, “[w]e may not decide the facts anew, reweigh
        the evidence or substitute our judgment” for that of the ALJ.
        Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1186 (11th Cir.
        2001). Rather, so long as it is supported by substantial evidence,
        we defer to the ALJ’s decision even if the evidence may
        preponderate against it. Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d
        1155, 1158–59 (11th Cir. 2004).
               On appeal, Gregory presents two claims as to why the denial
        of SSI was improper. First, Gregory argues that there was not
        substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that he did not
        meet or equal Listing 12.15. Second, he appears to argue that there
        was not substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s RFC
        determination.8
                    A. Whether substantial evidence supported the
                       ALJ’s finding that Gregory did not meet or equal
                       Listing 12.15

               A disability is an “inability 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

        8 In his reply brief, Gregory appears to contend, for the first time on appeal,
        that the ALJ placed too much weight on his ability to perform daily activities
        in determining whether he was disabled. Because he raises this argument for
        the first time in his reply brief, we do not consider it. See Lovett v. Ray, 327
        F.3d 1181, 1183 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Because [appellant] raises [his] argument for
        the first time in his reply brief, it is not properly before us.”).
USCA11 Case: 21-14103      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/14/2023     Page: 17 of 22

        21-14103                Opinion of the Court                        17

        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 mere
        diagnosis of a medical impairment is insufficient to establish a
        disability, as it does not reveal the extent to which the impairment
        limits the claimant’s ability to work. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1213 n.6.
        The ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence in its decision.
        See Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005).
               The social security regulations outline a five-step process for
        disability determinations: (1) whether claimant is engaged in
        substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether claimant has a severe
        impairment or combination of impairments; (3) if so, whether that
        impairment, or combination of impairments, meets or equals the
        medical listings; (4) if not, whether claimant can perform his past
        relevant work in light of his RFC; and (5) if not, whether, based on
        his age, education, and work experience, claimant can perform
        other work available in the national economy. Winschel, 631 F.3d
        at 1178.
               The listings of impairments, as relevant to step three,
        describe “impairments that [the agency] consider[s] to be severe
        enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity,
        regardless of his or her age, education, or work experience.” 20
        C.F.R. § 404.1525(a). A claimant bears the burden of showing his
        impairments meet a listing. See Barron v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 227,
        229 (11th Cir. 1991).
             The severity requirement for Listing 12.15—the listing for
        Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders—may be met by satisfying
USCA11 Case: 21-14103     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/14/2023     Page: 18 of 22

        18                     Opinion of the Court                 21-14103

        the criteria under either paragraph B or paragraph C. See 20 C.F.R.
        Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. Under paragraph B, Listing 12.15 may be
        met by showing one extreme or two marked limitations in the
        following areas of functioning: (1) understanding, remembering,
        or applying information; (2) interacting with others;
        (3) concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and (4) adapting
        or managing oneself. Id.
               Under paragraph C, Listing 12.15 may be met by showing
        that the impairment is “serious and persistent,” has lasted for over
        two years, and that both: (1) medical treatment, therapy, support,
        or a highly structured setting diminished the symptoms and signs
        of the disorder; and (2) the claimant has the minimal capacity to
        adapt to changes in his environment or to demands that are not
        already part of his daily life. Id.
                A mild limitation means that the claimant’s “functioning in
        this area independently, appropriately, effectively, and on a
        sustained basis is slightly limited.” Id. § 12.00(F)(2)(b). A moderate
        limitation means that the claimant’s “functioning in this area
        independently, appropriately, effectively, and on a sustained basis
        is fair.” Id. § 12.00(F)(2)(c). A marked limitation means that the
        claimant’s functioning as described above is “seriously limited,”
        while an extreme limitation is when the claimant is “not able to
        function.” Id. § 12.00(F)(2)(d), (e).
              Here, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that
        Gregory did not satisfy the B or C criteria of Listing 12.15. As to
        the first B criterion, Gregory’s mental status evaluations
USCA11 Case: 21-14103     Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 07/14/2023    Page: 19 of 22

        21-14103               Opinion of the Court                      19

        consistently indicated that Gregory’s limitations in understanding,
        remembering, or applying information were mild, if not arguably
        non-existent.
               Second, the evidence indicated that Gregory’s limitations in
        interacting with others were moderate. Although he testified that
        he did not get along well with others, had bad mood swings, and
        got easily frustrated and angry, his providers frequently noted his
        normal mood, affect, and cooperative behavior. Gregory also
        indicated in his function report that he did not have any problems
        getting along with family, friends, neighbors, or others.
               Third, Gregory’s mental status evaluations consistently
        indicated that his limitations in concentrating, persisting, or
        maintaining pace were mild, if not arguably nonexistent.
               Fourth, the evidence indicated that Gregory’s limitations in
        adapting or managing himself were mild, if not arguably
        nonexistent. In his function report, he stated that he prepared
        soups, did laundry, drove, took care of his son, and went shopping.
        Further, he worked as a pressure washer for 66 hours a week for a
        period of time and was only fired due to the competing demands
        of his parole meetings.
                Further, the evidence also supported the ALJ’s finding that
        Gregory did not satisfy the C criteria of Listing 12.15. At the time
        of his ALJ diagnosis, he had only received his PTSD diagnosis a
        little more than a year prior—clearly less time than the two-year
        window required to satisfy the first C criterion. More importantly,
USCA11 Case: 21-14103        Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 07/14/2023        Page: 20 of 22

        20                         Opinion of the Court                      21-14103

        the evidence indicated that Gregory had the ability to adapt to
        environmental changes and new demands, as his mental status
        evaluation following the loss of his job was the same as his prior
        evaluation. In fact, Gregory used his job loss as an opportunity to
        pursue therapy, which he had been unable to do previously
        because of his job’s demanding hours.
                   B. Whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s
                      RFC determination

               At steps four and five of the sequential process, the ALJ must
        determine whether the claimant has the RFC to perform his past
        relevant work and, if not, any other work.                 20 C.F.R.
        § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv)-(v). RFC is an assessment of a claimant’s ability
        to do work despite his impairments. Id. § 404.1545(a)(1). In
        formulating an RFC, the ALJ considers a claimant’s “ability to meet
        the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.” Id.
        § 404.1545(a)(4). The ALJ examines all relevant medical and other
        evidence, 9 including “any statements about what [the claimant]
        can still do that have been provided by medical sources” and

        9 A medical opinion is a statement from a medical source about what a
        claimant can still do despite his impairments and whether the claimant has one
        or more impairment-related limitations or restrictions in, among other
        abilities, the ability to perform mental demands of work activities, such as
        understanding, remembering, maintaining concentration, persistence, or
        pace; carrying out instructions; or responding appropriately to supervision, co-
        workers, or work pressures in a work setting. 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(a)(2).
USCA11 Case: 21-14103     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 07/14/2023    Page: 21 of 22

        21-14103               Opinion of the Court                       21

        “descriptions and observations” by the claimant and others of his
        limitations. Id. § 404.1545(a)(3).
                To the extent Gregory argues to the contrary in his initial
        brief, we hold that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s RFC
        determination that Gregory had the RFC to perform medium
        work. The ALJ acknowledged that Gregory had frequent
        headaches and migraines but correctly noted that the record did
        not contain any evidence of hospitalization for migraines. The ALJ
        also acknowledged that Gregory’s mental status examinations
        generally showed that he had normal attention, full orientation,
        and normal moods and was able to perform the full activities of
        daily living. Further, the ALJ pointed to Gregory’s work history,
        where he was employed in gainful activity and was not fired and
        did not quit due to an inability to work, only for conflicts with his
        required parole meetings.
                The ALJ was correct—Gregory’s medical examinations,
        combined with his work history and his own testimony about his
        ability to perform daily life activities—contradicted his statements
        concerning the limiting effects of his impairments and, as such, the
        RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence.
                                  III.   Conclusion

               Because substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding
        that Gregory’s PTSD did not meet or equal the requirements of
        Listing 12.15, and because substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s
        RFC determination, we affirm.
USCA11 Case: 21-14103   Document: 42-1   Date Filed: 07/14/2023   Page: 22 of 22

        22                  Opinion of the Court             21-14103

              AFFIRMED.