[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 17, 2011
No. 10-15467 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv-00839-AEP
FRANKIE L. SOLOMON, SR.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lDefendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 17, 2011)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Frankie Solomon appeals a decision that affirmed the denial of his
application for disability insurance benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Solomon
challenges the finding of the administrative law judge that Solomon’s complaints
of pain and fatigue were not credible. We affirm.
We review the decision of the Commissioner “to determine if it is supported
by substantial evidence.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158
(11th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence consists of “‘such relevant evidence as a
reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id.
(quoting Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997)). “An
administrative law judge may properly challenge the credibility of a claimant” and,
because “the resolution of conflicting evidence is for the Secretary and the
administrative law judge,” Allen v. Schweiker, 642 F.2d 799, 801 (5th Cir. 1981),
“we may not decide the facts anew” as long as substantial evidence supports the
findings of fact, Smallwood v. Schweiker, 681 F.2d 1349, 1351 (11th Cir. 1982).
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Solomon’s testimony about
his physical limitations was not credible. “[T]o establish a disability based on
testimony of pain and other symptoms,” a disability claimant must present
“evidence of an underlying medical condition” and either medical evidence that he
suffers severe pain or evidence that the condition is “expected to give rise to the
claimed pain.” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002).
Solomon testified that pain and fatigue caused by scleroderma, rheumatoid
2
arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and migraine headaches prevented him from
resuming his job as a commercial truck driver, but the administrative law judge
found that Solomon’s testimony was inconsistent with his own statements and
objective medical evidence. Solomon said that he had “excruciating” headaches,
but he testified that he took medicine for the pain and the results of a head MRI in
2006 and an evaluation in 2007 revealed that he had no neurological
abnormalities. Solomon testified he was incapable of maneuvering a truck, but his
treating physicians, Dr. Urmesh Raturi and Dr. Jay Reese, released Solomon to
resume work in 2004 and, in May 2004, rheumatologist Harris McIlwain released
Solomon for “complete duties” other than placing a tarp over his cargo. In 2005,
Dr. Raul Nodal gave Solomon a score of 4 out of 5 for the strength of his grip and
shoulders and a perfect score for the strength in his other upper and his lower
extremities. Although Dr. Nodal observed that Solomon had shortness of breath
when he stood up repeatedly and had difficulty exercising fine motor skills, the
evidence established these limitations did not prevent Solomon from driving a
commercial truck. Two state medical consultants found that Solomon could sit for
6 hours at a time and had unlimited ability to push, pull, and operate hand and foot
controls. Solomon told an emergency room physician that he had lifted heavy
objects around his house in April 2007, and the physician found that Solomon had
3
“[e]qual and good power in all four extremities.” In May 2007, Dr. Mack
Knowles found that Solomon had a full range of motion in his fingers and ankle.
The record supports the finding of the administrative law judge that Solomon
could perform his past relevant work.
Solomon asks that this Court remand his case because the Appeals Council
failed to consider medical findings that Dr. Harris McIlwain made after Solomon’s
evidentiary hearing, but Solomon did not present this argument to the district
court. In the district court, Solomon challenged only the findings of the
administrative law judge. Because Solomon “challenge[d] the administrative law
judge’s decision to deny benefits, but not the decision of the Appeals Council to
deny review of the administrative law judge, [the district court was not required
to] consider [the] evidence [Solomon] submitted to the Appeals Council.” Ingram
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1266 (11th Cir. 2007).
The denial of Solomon’s application for benefits is AFFIRMED.
4