Court Opinion

ID: 9950987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 15:02:05.047234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:43.765574
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13848    Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 03/15/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13848
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       DARLENE C. MOORE,
                                                     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. 1:21-cv-05266-LMM
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13848      Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 03/15/2024     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13848

       Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Darlene Moore, pro se, appeals the district court’s order af-
       firming the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”)
       denial of her application for a period of disability, Supplemental Se-
       curity Income, and disability insurance benefits. She states that she
       is disabled due to osteoarthritis of the hips and asks us to approve
       her application.
               When, as here, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denies
       benefits and the Appeals Council denies review, the ALJ’s decision
       is reviewed as the Commissioner’s final decision. Doughty v. Apfel,
       245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). The decision is affirmed if it
       is supported by “substantial evidence” and is “based on proper legal
       standards.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158
       (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). A decision is supported
       by substantial evidence if the administrative record contains evi-
       dence that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to sup-
       port the agency’s factual conclusions—even if it may be out-
       weighed by other evidence. Id. at 1158–59. We do not reweigh the
       evidence, reevaluate the facts, or substitute our judgment for the
       Commissioner’s. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176,
       1178 (11th Cir. 2011).
              The social security regulations outline a five-step process
       that the ALJ must use to determine whether a claimant is disabled:
       (1) whether she is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not,
USCA11 Case: 22-13848      Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 03/15/2024     Page: 3 of 4

       22-13848               Opinion of the Court                         3

       whether she has a severe impairment or combination of impair-
       ments; (3) if so, whether that impairment, or combination of im-
       pairments, meets or equals the medical listings; (4) if not, whether
       she can perform her past relevant work in light of her residual func-
       tional capacity; and (5) if not, whether she can perform other work.
       20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178.
              Though pro se briefs are construed liberally, pro se litigants
       abandon issues not briefed on appeal. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d
       870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). An issue is not briefed on appeal when it
       is not specifically and “clearly identified” by a party in its opening
       brief. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330
       (11th Cir. 2004). For an issue to be adequately briefed, it must be
       plainly and prominently raised and must be supported by argu-
       ments and citations to the evidence and to relevant authority.
       Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir.
       2014).
              Even construing her pro se brief liberally, Moore has aban-
       doned her claim by not citing any law on appeal, identifying any
       alleged errors in the decision, or arguing that the decision is not
       supported by substantial evidence. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874;
       Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681.
               In any event, the Commissioner’s decision is supported by
       substantial evidence and was based on proper legal standards. See
       Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158. The ALJ properly went through the
       five-step process in evaluating whether Moore was disabled. See
       20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 404.1545. The determination was supported
USCA11 Case: 22-13848     Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 03/15/2024    Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court                 22-13848

       by state medical consultants’ reports stating that Moore could per-
       form her past sedentary work, Moore’s rejection of suggested treat-
       ment, a medical report stating that she had “normal gait and sta-
       tion,” and expert testimony about her prior jobs. This evidence is
       sufficient to support the conclusion that Moore is not disabled. See
       Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158–59; Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178.
             AFFIRMED