Court Opinion

ID: 9398673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 20:01:43.849588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:35.408996
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12701    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 05/31/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12701
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       DONN HOWARD CALLAHAN,
                                                     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-01273-AAS
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12701        Document: 25-1        Date Filed: 05/31/2023        Page: 2 of 4

       2                         Opinion of the Court                     22-12701

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Donn Howard Callahan appeals the district court’s affir-
       mance of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) denial of his
       claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. He
       contends the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) finding the medical
       opinion provided by Thanh Le, M.D., was minimally persuasive
       and was not supported by substantial evidence. After review, 1 we
       affirm the district court.
               The ALJ considers medical opinions from acceptable medi-
       cal sources, which include licensed physicians and licensed psy-
       chologists. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502(a), 404.1513(a)(2). For claims
       filed on or after March 27, 2017, the SSA’s new regulations apply.
       Id. § 404.1520c. Under the new regulatory scheme, the ALJ must
       articulate how persuasive she finds each medical opinion, but she
       no longer must assign more weight to a treating source’s medical
       opinion or explain why good cause exists to disregard it. Compare
       id. § 404.1520c(a)-(b) with id. § 404.1527(c)(2). Rather, ALJs should
       focus on the opinion’s persuasiveness in light of five factors:

       1 We review a social security disability case to determine whether the Com-
       missioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and review de novo
       whether the correct legal standards were applied. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d
       1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). We will not decide the facts anew, make credibil-
       ity determinations, or reweigh the evidence. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc.
       Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011).
USCA11 Case: 22-12701      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 05/31/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-12701                Opinion of the Court                         3

       (1) supportability; (2) consistency; (3) relationship with the claim-
       ant; (4) specialization; and (5) “other factors that tend to support or
       contradict” the opinion. Id. § 404.1520c(c)(1)-(5).
              Supportability and consistency are the most important fac-
       tors and must be explained, but the ALJ is not required to explain
       the other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(2). “The more relevant
       the objective medical evidence and supporting explanations pre-
       sented by a medical source are to support his or her medical opin-
       ion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), the more persua-
       sive the medical opinions or prior administrative medical finding(s)
       will be.” Id. § 404.1520c(c)(1). Further, “[t]he more consistent a
       medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s) is
       with the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical
       sources in the claim, the more persuasive the medical opinion(s) or
       prior administrative medical finding(s) will be.” Id.
       § 404.1520c(c)(2).
              The ALJ’s conclusions are supported by substantial evi-
       dence. See Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997)
       (stating substantial evidence is any relevant evidence, greater than
       a scintilla, that “a reasonable person would accept as adequate to
       support a conclusion”). First, as the ALJ noted, Dr. Le’s opinion,
       imposing strict limitations on Callahan’s capabilities, was unsup-
       ported by his medical records which consistently reported substan-
       tial pain relief from Callahan’s medications and normal levels of
       strength. Second, the ALJ’s finding the opinion was inconsistent
       with the findings of other practitioners was also supported by
USCA11 Case: 22-12701      Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 05/31/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12701

       substantial evidence as multiple other doctors consistently found
       that Callahan had full strength in all of his extremities and a normal
       gait. While there is evidence, both in Dr. Le’s record and within
       medical reports from other practitioners that could have supported
       a finding of persuasiveness, this Court will not reweigh the evi-
       dence when the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evi-
       dence. See Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158-
       59 (11th Cir. 2004) (stating we must affirm the ALJ’s decision, even
       if the evidence may preponderate against it, so long as it is sup-
       ported by substantial evidence). Additionally, the ALJ did not err
       in failing to explicitly discuss this evidence in her analysis of Dr.
       Le’s opinion as an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evi-
       dence, and regardless, as acknowledged by Callahan , the ALJ did
       discuss this evidence in her overall analysis of the RFC. See Dyer
       v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating while the
       ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence, her decision cannot
       be a broad rejection that precludes a reviewing court from conclud-
       ing she considered the claimant’s conditions as a whole). As such,
       we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.