Court Opinion

ID: 9379476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 19:01:34.449803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:21.964159
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12153    Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 03/15/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12153
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       PHILLEATRA JOYCE GAYLOR,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-02245-MHC
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12153     Document: 31-1      Date Filed: 03/15/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-12153

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and WILSON and LUCK, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Philleatra Gaylor appeals an order affirming the denial of her
       application for disability insurance benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We
       affirm.
               Gaylor argues that the administrative law judge failed to
       consider the combined impact of her non-severe visual impair-
       ments of myopic degeneration, cataracts, glaucoma, and monocu-
       lar vision, with her severe visual impairment of myopia, but the
       administrative law judge considered all records relevant to deter-
       mining Gaylor’s condition as a whole. See Dyer v. Barnhart, 395
       F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). And the administrative law judge
       accounted for Gaylor’s myopic degeneration by including a limita-
       tion on work requiring distance vision.
              Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s
       finding that Gaylor’s reports of the limiting effects from glaucoma,
       cataracts, and monocular vision were either inconsistent with or
       unsupported by the record. Specifically, Dr. Althea Turk, a consult-
       ing ophthalmologist, explained that Gaylor’s report of “night blind-
       ness” was unconfirmed, and cataract surgical correction was not
       needed. Gaylor’s primary care physicians did not record any signif-
       icant visual complaints. And the vocational expert testified that,
USCA11 Case: 22-12153     Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 03/15/2023    Page: 3 of 3

       22-12153               Opinion of the Court                       3

       even with Gaylor’s reported limitation of monocular vision in her
       left eye, she still could perform her past relevant work.
              Gaylor argues that the administrative law judge’s hypothet-
       ical question to the vocational expert was deficient because it did
       not include her inability to commute to work in certain conditions,
       and that the administrative law judge failed to ask the vocational
       expert for her “source(s).” These arguments are not properly be-
       fore us because Gaylor did not raise them in the district court. See
       Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1161 (11th Cir.
       2004). For this reason, too, we decline to consider Gaylor’s argu-
       ment that the administrative law judge failed to consider her attor-
       ney’s questions to the vocational expert. Id.
             We AFFIRM the denial of Gaylor’s application for benefits.