[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-14760 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 13, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-00161-CV-WCO-2
DANNY CLINE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(March 13, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Danny Cline appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social Security
Administration’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and his motion to remand
for consideration of new evidence, as well the district court’s separate order
denying Cline’s motion to alter the judgment.1 After an administrative law judge
denied Cline’s claims, his case was reviewed by the magistrate judge, who issued a
thorough report and recommendation that recommended affirming the
administrative law judge’s denial of benefits to Cline. The district court issued an
order approving and adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
We affirm on the basis of the report and recommendation, as adopted by the
district court, to which we add only the following two points for clarification.
The first one concerns Cline’s claim that the ALJ erred in discounting the
opinion of Cline’s treating doctor, Dr. Hal Silcox. In a May 2003 letter Dr. Silcox
opined that Cline’s condition met the listing requirements for social security
benefits based on back injuries. The ALJ had “good cause” to discount Dr.
Silcox’s opinion because it was inconsistent with Dr. Silcox’s own medical
records. See Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240–41 (11th Cir. 2004). One
of the listing requirements relevant to Cline’s disability claim is that the injured
1
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cline’s motion for remand
because the allegedly newly discovered evidence that supported the motion was not material.
See Ingram v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1267 (11th Cir. 2007).
2
person test positive on a “straight leg test,” which is used to assess nerve
compression in the person’s back. Dr. Silcox’s treatment notes do not indicate a
positive straight leg test for Cline. Instead, every time that Dr. Silcox performed a
straight leg test on Cline, the test was negative. Therefore, Dr. Silcox’s opinion
that Cline’s injuries met listing requirements is inconsistent with those medical
records, and the ALJ had good cause to discount that opinion.
Our second point is that the record does support the ALJ’s determination
that Cline’s testimony was not entirely credible regarding the amount of pain that
he was suffering. “The ALJ determines the disabling nature of pain. If substantial
evidence supports the determination, this court will affirm.” Wilson v. Heckler,
734 F.2d 513, 517 (11th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted). Cline’s pain allegedly
stems from a failed surgery that was intended to fuse two discs in his lower spine.
A failed fusion is known as “pseudoarthrosis.” Cline argues that the ALJ erred in
failing to recognize his pseudoarthrosis as an “objectively determined medical
condition” that “can reasonably be expected to give rise to [his] alleged pain.”
Johns v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 551, 556 (11th Cir. 1987). We disagree. It is true that
Dr. Silcox diagnosed Cline with pseudoarthrosis after x-raying his back in January
2003. However, that diagnosis was not confirmed in later x-rays, including one
taken by another doctor in 2005. Therefore, the evidence regarding whether Cline
3
has pseudoarthrosis is conflicting. In social security disability cases, we have
noted that “choosing between conflicting evidence is a task particularly suited to
the fact finder, and we will not disturb such a determination on appeal.” Landry v.
Heckler, 782 F.2d 1551, 1553 (11th Cir. 1986). Moreover, none of the doctors
treating Cline after his fusion surgery indicated in their treatment notes that Cline
was in the type of pain that he had described during his testimony before the ALJ.
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Cline’s testimony
regarding the severity of his pain was not wholly credible.
AFFIRMED.
4