Court Opinion

ID: 9951679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-18 19:01:03.299471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:05.211347
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11827    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 03/18/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11827
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       SONYA HORTON,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, COMMISSIONER,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Alabama
                     D.C. Docket No. 4:21-cv-01651-HNJ
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11827     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 03/18/2024    Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-11827

       Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Sonya Horton appeals the denial of her application for disa-
       bility insurance benefits and supplemental security income. During
       her application process, Horton was given a hearing before an Ad-
       ministrative Law Judge of the Social Security Administration.
       Among the evidence Horton presented at that hearing were the
       opinions of three medical professionals: (1) Dr. Tariq, one of Hor-
       ton’s treating physicians; (2) Dr. Nichols, a physician who exam-
       ined Horton one time; and (3) Dr. Brennan, a consulting physician.
       Each opinion supported Horton’s claim that her mental and physi-
       cal disabilities made her unemployable. En route to denying Hor-
       ton’s application, the ALJ found those opinions largely unpersua-
       sive and gave them little weight in the overall analysis. Horton’s
       appeal challenges the ALJ’s treatment of those opinions.
               As to each opinion, the ALJ found that the physician’s bot-
       tom line conclusion conflicted with the rest of the record. Dr. Tariq
       told the ALJ that Horton would be unable to find work due to de-
       bilitating neck and back pain. But Dr. Tariq’s contemporaneous
       treatment notes indicated that Horton’s physical examinations
       were largely normal apart from some muscle spasms. According to
       the ALJ, Dr. Tariq’s opinion also conflicted with treatment notes
       from physical examinations performed by other providers. Dr.
       Nichols, after performing one mental health evaluation at the re-
       quest of Horton’s counsel, opined that various mental health
USCA11 Case: 23-11827      Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 03/18/2024     Page: 3 of 4

       23-11827               Opinion of the Court                         3

       conditions would prevent Horton from working a full workday
       and would require Horton to miss 10-12 days of work a month.
       The ALJ discounted this opinion as inconsistent with the evidence
       that Horton’s other mental examinations were largely normal and
       evidence that treatment controlled Horton’s mental health condi-
       tions. Dr. Brennan testified that Horton likely had mental health
       issues. The ALJ found that testimony unhelpful, however, because
       it was based on assumptions and speculation that conflicted with
       other evidence. For one example, Dr. Brennan stated that Horton
       had a history of missing medical appointments, which likely evi-
       denced extreme mental impairment. But the record evidence (e.g.,
       some of Horton’s own statements to her healthcare providers) ex-
       plained that the missed appointments were due to transportation
       issues.
              Horton argues that the ALJ gave too much weight to evi-
       dence that contradicted the physicians’ opinions at the expense of
       evidence that purportedly supported those opinions. But it is not
       our role to “decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substi-
       tute our judgment for” the ALJ’s. Viverette v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 13
       F.4th 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2021). Our review of the ALJ’s decision
       to discount the physicians’ opinions is narrow. We ask whether the
       ALJ adequately explained the basis of its decision and whether the
       ALJ’s explanation establishes that there was “substantial evidence”
       to support the decision. See Hargress v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 883
       F.3d 1302, 1305–06 (11th Cir. 2018); Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
       631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011). “Substantial evidence is more
       than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person
USCA11 Case: 23-11827      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 03/18/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11827

       would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Walker v. Soc.
       Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 987 F.3d 1333, 1338 (11th Cir. 2021); see also id.
       (discussing the “good cause” standard for discounting the opinion
       of a treating physician). The ALJ’s decisions to discount the physi-
       cians’ opinions were adequately explained and supported by sub-
       stantial evidence. That resolves this appeal.
              AFFIRMED.