Court Opinion

ID: 9931613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 16:01:52.68752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:14.474130
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11633    Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 02/09/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11633
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       JEFFREY MAY,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-02481-JRK
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11633     Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 02/09/2024    Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-11633

       Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Jeffrey David May challenges the Commissioner of the
       Social Security Administration’s (“Commissioner”) denial of his
       Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) application. May argues that
       the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred by failing to consider the
       limitations his migraine headaches caused. He asks us to reverse
       this case and remand it with directions for the ALJ to conduct a
       new hearing and give appropriate weight to the Veteran Affairs
       (“VA”) medical consultant’s opinion about the migraine
       headaches. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the
       district court.
                                         I
               When we review a decision by the Commissioner, we ask
       whether substantial evidence supports the factual findings and
       whether the correct legal standards were applied. 42 U.S.C.
       § 405(g); Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th
       Cir. 2004) (per curiam). And we review de novo whether the ALJ
       applied the proper legal standards. Washington v. Comm’r of Soc.
       Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1358 (11th Cir. 2018).
             Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a
       reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a
       conclusion.” Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158 (citation omitted). It
       requires more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance of the
       evidence. Id. While we must review the record as a whole, we
USCA11 Case: 23-11633      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 02/09/2024     Page: 3 of 5

       23-11633               Opinion of the Court                          3

       may not decide facts anew, re-weigh evidence, make credibility
       determinations, or substitute our judgment for that of the
       Commissioner. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211, 1213 (11th
       Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
               The ALJ must develop a full and fair record. Welch v. Bowen,
       854 F.2d 436, 440 (11th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). Doing so ensures
       the ALJ has “scrupulously and conscientiously probe[d] into,
       inquire[d] of, and explore[d] for all the relevant facts,” while also
       enabling us on appeal “to determine whether the ultimate decision
       on the merits is rational and supported by substantial evidence.”
       Id. (citations omitted). But even so, the ALJ need not discuss every
       piece of evidence in his decision. See Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206,
       1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
              “An individual claiming Social Security disability benefits
       must prove that she is disabled.” Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211. The
       Social Security regulations establish a five-step process for an ALJ
       to determine whether a claimant is disabled. The ALJ considers (1)
       whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful
       activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or
       combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or
       equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of
       Impairments; (4) based on a residual-functional-capacity
       assessment, whether the claimant can perform any of his past
       relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether significant
       numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant
       can perform given the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age,
USCA11 Case: 23-11633      Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 02/09/2024     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11633

       education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v).
       If the ALJ determines that the claimant is not disabled at any step
       of the evaluation process, the inquiry ends. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4).
                                         II
              Here, the ALJ found at step four that May was not disabled
       because he was capable of performing past relevant work. The ALJ
       alternatively found at step five that May was not disabled because
       he was capable of performing work that existed in significant
       numbers nationally.
               May appeals the district court’s affirmance of those findings.
       He argues that the ALJ failed to give “great weight” to the opinion
       of the VA’s medical consultant about May’s migraine headaches.
       Even though the ALJ mentioned May’s headaches and the VA
       medical consultant’s opinion about them, May posits that the ALJ
       failed to specifically acknowledge the consultant’s opinions on the
       frequency and intensity of the headaches. He cites Noble v.
       Commissioner of Social Security, 963 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2020), for
       the principle the ALJ must explicitly address in his decision opinion
       evidence from a VA medical consultant that underlies a percentage
       rating assignment, and the ALJ must give express reasons if he
       rejects that opinion.
              For claims filed before March 27, 2017, Noble requires this
       Court to ask the following: (1) “whether the ALJ’s decision shows
       that she considered [the VA’s] decision” on the claimant’s disability
       status, and if so, (2) “whether substantial evidence in the record
USCA11 Case: 23-11633      Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 02/09/2024     Page: 5 of 5

       23-11633               Opinion of the Court                         5

       supports the ALJ’s decision to depart from the other agency’s
       decision.” Id. at 1330.
               We conclude, after review of the record, that the ALJ
       applied the proper legal standards and substantial evidence
       supported his decision. First, the ALJ considered the VA medical
       consultant’s opinion that May’s migraine headaches impacted his
       ability to work. In fact, he described the consultant’s opinion in the
       ALJ decision. Plus, the ALJ specifically found that “migraine
       headaches” were one of May’s severe impairments, and he
       considered other evidence of headaches throughout the decision.
              Second, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision
       that May had the capacity to perform one of his past jobs or other
       jobs in the national economy, even with the evidence of migraine
       headaches. For example, the ALJ relied on evidence that May was
       able to live independently, perform chores, drive, handle finances,
       work out, and care for his house and dogs. And while the ALJ
       considered evidence that May suffered from migraine headaches,
       he also relied on evidence that the headaches had no impact on
       May’s ability to work.
              We may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our
       judgment for the Commissioner’s on appeal. So long as substantial
       evidence supports the decision, we may not overturn the decision
       of the Commissioner. Here, that is the case. Accordingly, we
       affirm the decision of the district court upholding the decision of
       the Commissioner.
             AFFIRMED.