Court Opinion

ID: 9368891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 14:00:30.014254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:11.558465
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10677    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 02/07/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10677
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       LANTHA JEAN OWENS,
                                                     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. 4:20-cv-01635-ACA
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10677      Document: 25-1        Date Filed: 02/07/2023   Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-10677

       Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Lantha Owens appeals the district court’s order affirming
       the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for dis-
       ability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security in-
       come (“SSI”). No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
                                            I.
              When -- as in this case -- an Administrative Law Judge
       (“ALJ”) denies an application for benefits and the Appeals Council
       denies review, we review the ALJ’s decision as the Commissioner’s
       final decision. See Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir.
       2001).
              Our review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited to
       whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether
       the correct legal standards were applied. See Winschel v. Comm’r
       of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). “Substantial evi-
       dence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a rea-
       sonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
       Id. We review de novo the ALJ’s application of the law. See
       Harner v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 38 F.4th 892, 896 (11th Cir.
       2022).
              A person who applies for Social Security DIB or for SSI ben-
       efits must first prove that she is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§
       404.1512(a), 416.912(a). The Social Security Regulations outline a
USCA11 Case: 22-10677        Document: 25-1           Date Filed: 02/07/2023    Page: 3 of 7

       22-10677                  Opinion of the Court                             3

       five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a
       claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).
       The ALJ must evaluate (1) whether the claimant engaged in sub-
       stantial gainful work; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impair-
       ment; (3) whether the severe impairment meets or equals an im-
       pairment in the Listings of Impairments; (4) whether the claimant
       has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform her past
       relevant work; and (5) whether, in the light of the claimant’s RFC,
       age, education, and work experience, there exist other jobs in the
       national economy the claimant can perform. Id.
                                                II.
               Owens first applied for DIB and SSI benefits in July 2014.
       Owens alleged that she was unable to work due to her disabling
       mental and physical conditions. Following an October 2019 hear-
       ing, 1 the ALJ denied Owens’s application.
              Applying the five-step evaluation process, the ALJ found
       that Owens suffered from these severe impairments: mood disor-
       der, degenerative disc disease, status post anterior cervical discec-
       tomy and fusion at C6-C7, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety,
       cannabis abuse, and nicotine dependence. The ALJ, however, de-
       termined that Owens had no impairment or combination of

       1 The ALJ first denied Owens’s application in June 2015. In an earlier appeal
       from that denial, we granted the Commissioner’s unopposed motion to re-
       mand for further proceedings. The October 2019 hearing was conducted on
       remand.
USCA11 Case: 22-10677     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 02/07/2023   Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-10677

       impairments that met or medically equaled an impairment in the
       Listing of Impairments. Pertinent to this appeal, the ALJ concluded
       that Owens’s mental impairment did not meet the criteria for List-
       ing 12.04 (“Depressive, bipolar and related disorders”) or for List-
       ing 12.06 (“Anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders”).
              The ALJ next determined that Owens had the RFC to per-
       form light work with several specified physical and mental limita-
       tions. Considering Owens’s age, education, work experience, and
       RFC -- together with testimony of the vocational expert -- the ALJ
       determined that Owens could perform work in the national econ-
       omy. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Owens was not disa-
       bled.
             Owens administratively appealed the ALJ’s decision to the
       Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied Owens’s request for
       review. The district court affirmed.
                                           III.
              On appeal, Owens first contends that the ALJ failed to ac-
       cord proper weight to the medical opinion of Dr. Wilson: a psy-
       chologist who examined Owens one time. Owens, however, offers
       no substantive argument challenging the weight given to Dr. Wil-
       son’s opinion. And -- instead of disputing the ALJ’s stated reasons
       for assigning little weight to Dr. Wilson’s opinion -- Owens con-
       tends only that the ALJ’s stated reasons are “vague” and inade-
       quate.
USCA11 Case: 22-10677      Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 02/07/2023     Page: 5 of 7

       22-10677                Opinion of the Court                         5

               This portion of Owens’s counseled brief consists of page-
       long block quotes from the ALJ’s decision in this case and from two
       cases decided by this Court (one of which is unpublished). Owens
       seems to cite our earlier decisions for the broad proposition that
       the ALJ must “state with at least some measure of clarity the
       grounds for his decision.” See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (noting
       that -- absent a clearly articulated statement of the ALJ’s reasons for
       disregarding a medical opinion -- “it is impossible for a reviewing
       court to determine whether the ultimate decision on the merits of
       the claim is rational and supported by substantial evidence”). Ow-
       ens offers no discussion about how the cited cases are similar to
       Owens’s circumstances or otherwise support her argument. We
       have said that an appellant forfeits an issue when she “makes only
       passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without
       supporting arguments and authority.” See Sapuppo v. Allstate Flo-
       ridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014). Under the cir-
       cumstances presented here, Owens has forfeited her challenges to
       the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Wilson’s opinion. See Harner, 38 F.4th
       at 898-99 (concluding that the claimant “forfeited any challenge” to
       aspects of the ALJ’s decision mentioned in her brief when the
       claimant’s counseled brief “consist[ed] only of block quotations
       from and cursory mentions of various decisions of this and other
       courts” without reference to the facts of claimant’s case and with-
       out “any meaningful explanation” about how the cited decisions
       applied to her claim).
USCA11 Case: 22-10677         Document: 25-1         Date Filed: 02/07/2023         Page: 6 of 7

       6                          Opinion of the Court                       22-10677

              In any event, we reject Owens’s argument about the ade-
       quacy of the ALJ’s statement of reasons. The ALJ explained in de-
       tail the reasons for giving little weight to Dr. Wilson’s opinion.
       The ALJ provided specific examples of how Dr. Wilson’s opinion
       about the severity of Owens’s limitations was inconsistent with Dr.
       Wilson’s own treatment records, with the objective medical evi-
       dence in the record, and with Owens’s testimony. The ALJ’s ex-
       planation is plainly adequate to allow for meaningful appellate re-
       view. 2
               Owens next asserts that she meets Listings 12.04 and 12.06.
       This portion of Owens’s counseled brief consists of a recitation of
       the language in Listings 12.04 and 12.06 followed by ten pages of
       excerpts from Owens’s medical records and hearing testimony.
       Owens offers no supporting argument or discussion about how her
       medical records demonstrate that she satisfied the criteria in Listing
       12.04 and 12.06. Nor does Owens challenge directly the ALJ’s de-
       tailed reasons for determining that Owens’s medical conditions did
       not meet those Listings. Owens has thus abandoned her

       2 Owens also contends that the district court erred by offering post hoc ra-
       tionalizations for the ALJ’s decision to give little weight to Dr. Wilson’s opin-
       ion. We need not address that argument on appeal because we review only
       the Commissioner’s decision. See Henry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 802 F.3d
       1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2015) (In social security cases, “[o]ur review is ‘the same
       as that of the district court,’ meaning we neither defer to nor consider any
       errors in the district court’s opinion.” (citations omitted)).
USCA11 Case: 22-10677    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 02/07/2023   Page: 7 of 7

       22-10677              Opinion of the Court                     7

       arguments about Listings 12.04 and 12.06. See Harner, 38 F.4th at
       898-99; Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681.
             AFFIRMED.