Case: 13-11719 Date Filed: 12/19/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11719
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cv-00841-CLS
MICHELLE KING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(December 19, 2013)
Before WILSON, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 13-11719 Date Filed: 12/19/2013 Page: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Michelle King appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (“Commissioner”) denial of
her applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security
Income, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). On appeal, King first argues
that the district court should have remanded to the Appeals Council (“AC”)
because the AC erred in denying review in the light of King’s additional evidence.
Second, King contends that the AC’s written denial of review failed to show that it
adequately evaluated King’s additional evidence. Third, King believes that a
reasonable possibility, based on King’s additional evidence, exists that the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) would have reversed her opinion and
determined that King was eligible for benefits under Listings 12.04 (Affective
Disorders) or 12.05(c) (Mental Retardation).
The “final” decision of the Commissioner is subject to judicial review. 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it
is supported by substantial evidence. Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d
1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007). “With a few exceptions, the claimant is allowed to
present new evidence at each stage of [the] administrative process.” Id. at 1261.
“The [AC] must consider new, material, and chronologically relevant evidence and
2
Case: 13-11719 Date Filed: 12/19/2013 Page: 3 of 5
must review the case if the [ALJ’s] action, findings, or conclusion is contrary to
the weight of the evidence currently of record.” Id. (quotations omitted).
We review de novo the judgment of the district court. Id. at 1260. When a
claimant properly submits additional evidence to the AC, a reviewing court must
consider the entire record, including the additional evidence submitted to the AC,
to determine whether the denial of benefits was substantially erroneous. Id. at
1262.
We must affirm a decision that is supported by substantial evidence even if
the evidence preponderates against the ALJ’s findings. Crawford v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158-59 (11th Cir. 2004). “Substantial evidence is more
than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. at 1158. Moreover, we may not reweigh
the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ. Dyer v. Barnhart, 395
F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005).
A person claiming Social Security disability benefits must prove that she is
disabled. Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999). The ALJ uses a
five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether a claimant has proved
that she is disabled. Id. A claimant must show that (1) she is not performing
substantial gainful activity; (2) she has a severe impairment; (3) the impairment or
combination of impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in the
3
Case: 13-11719 Date Filed: 12/19/2013 Page: 4 of 5
regulations; or (4) she cannot perform her past relevant work; and (5) she cannot
perform other work, based on her age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520; Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1237 (11th Cir. 2004).
The ALJ must “assess and make a finding about the claimant’s residual
functional capacity [(“RFC”)] based on all the relevant medical and other evidence
in the case.” Id. at 1238 (quotations and alterations omitted). We have recognized
that a one-time examiner is not a treating medical provider, and the examiner’s
opinion is not entitled to deference. McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617, 619 (11th
Cir. 1987). A condition that is controlled by medication may not be a substantial
limitation for purposes of a claimant’s RFC. See id. at 620 n.1 (explaining that the
ALJ did not err in failing to include epilepsy in his hypothetical restrictions as
presented to the vocational expert where the claimant testified that his epilepsy was
substantially controlled by medication).
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
affirm.
King’s first argument -- that the district court should have remanded -- is
largely inapposite because we review, in regard to substantial evidence supporting
the Commissioner’s decision, the Commissioner’s final decision, not the district
court’s decision. On this record, the Commissioner’s decision was supported by
substantial evidence.
4
Case: 13-11719 Date Filed: 12/19/2013 Page: 5 of 5
Second, when King withdrew her motion to remand in the district court,
King conceded at least the Commissioner’s point * that the AC is not required to
meet a particular standard of clear articulation when it denies review; and we
generally will not consider an issue that the claimant failed to raise and preserve in
the district court. See Stewart v. Dept. of Health and Human Serv’s, 26 F.3d 115,
115 (11th Cir. 1994).
Third, King does not object to the AC’s denial of review or the ALJ’s
decision based solely on the evidence that was before the ALJ. Therefore, King has
abandoned those arguments on appeal. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swann, 27 F.3d
1539, 1542 (11th Cir. 1994) (explaining that issues not raised on appeal are
ordinarily considered abandoned). Furthermore, none of King’s additional
evidence was material, chronologically relevant, and contradictory to the ALJ’s
decision. Thus, King has failed to show that her additional evidence renders the
Commissioner’s denial of benefits erroneous.
AFFIRMED.
*
The withdrawal contains these words:
“The points in the Commissioner’s response [to Plaintiff’s motion to remand] are well
taken. The motion to remand is hereby withdrawn.”
5