Case: 17-12448 Date Filed: 01/29/2018 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-12448
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cv-00096-SGC
ROBERT GRANT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, COMMISSIONER,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(January 29, 2018)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-12448 Date Filed: 01/29/2018 Page: 2 of 5
Robert Grant appeals the decision that affirmed the denial of his application
for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). Grant argues that the Appeals Council failed to consider
new evidence from Dr. Stacey Towles-Moore and that the denial of benefits “was
not based on substantial evidence because the Appeals Council failed to consider
the [new] submissions.” Grant also argues that the administrative law judge failed
to provide adequate reasons for finding him not credible and that he is entitled to a
remand for the administrative law judge to reevaluate the limiting effects of his
symptoms under Social Security Ruling 16-3p. We affirm.
The Appeals Council considered evidence that was new, material, and
chronologically relevant. The Appeals Council “considered [Grant’s] reasons . . .
[for] disagree[ing] with the decision and the additional evidence listed on [an]
enclosed Order,” which included a letter prepared by Dr. Towles-Moore on June 1,
2014, and a physical capacities evaluation that the doctor completed on July 11,
2014. The Appeals Council ruled summarily, as it was entitled to do, “that [the
new] information [did] not provide a basis for changing the Administrative law
Judge’s decision.” See Mitchell v. Comm’r, 771 F.3d 780, 784 (11th Cir. 2014).
The new evidence that Grant submitted did not render the denial of benefits
erroneous. See id. Dr. Towles-Moore opined in her July 2014 evaluation that,
beginning on March 1, 2010, Grant could sit for two-hour increments and stand
2
Case: 17-12448 Date Filed: 01/29/2018 Page: 3 of 5
and walk for less than 50 minutes in an eight-hour workday, but that opinion was
based on the doctor’s “past experience” with other patients instead of an
examination of Grant. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(1) (affording more weight to the
opinion of a physician who conducted an exam). And Dr. Towles-Moore’s
evaluation and her June 2014 letter, in which she opined that it was “difficult for
[Grant] to walk or stand for any length of time (i.e., more than 5 minutes at a
time),” were inconsistent with her May 2014 treatment notes reflecting that Grant
had a “[n]ormal range of motion, muscle strength and stability in all extremities
with no pain on inspection.” See id. § 416.927(c)(4) (evaluating the consistency of
a medical opinion with the record). Dr. Towles-Moore’s opinions also were
inconsistent with treatment notes prepared between October 2011 and January
2014 by Dr. Carla Thomas, Grant’s treating physician at Quality of Life Health
Services, that Grant’s physical examination was generally unremarkable and,
despite his complaints about pain in his legs, he maintained a normal gait, range of
motion, and muscle strength and stability. Grant’s new evidence from Dr. Towles-
Moore failed to establish any error in the decision of the administrative law judge.
Substantial evidence supports the decision to discredit Grant’s testimony
about the limiting effects of his impairments. The administrative law judge found
that Grant’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to
cause the alleged symptoms; however, [his] statements concerning the intensity,
3
Case: 17-12448 Date Filed: 01/29/2018 Page: 4 of 5
persistence and limiting effects of [his] symptoms [were] not entirely credible” in
the light of his testimony about his life activities and his medical records. See 42
U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) 416.929(c). Grant’s testimony
that he experienced debilitating pain throughout his body, could only sit for 15
minutes and stand for 30 minutes, could not walk one block, had poor balance, and
required a cane to walk was inconsistent with medical reports that his physical
condition was unremarkable and that he maintained a normal gait, range of motion,
and muscle strength and stability “in all extremities”; with his testimony that he
cared for his disabled wife; and with his statements in a function report that he
shopped, drove, maintained his personal hygiene, and prepared meals. And Grant’s
testimony that he was easily distracted and was forgetful, depressed, and suffered
from drowsiness and dizziness was irreconciliable with Dr. Thomas’s findings
between May 2010 and March 2014 that Grant was “negative for confusion, . . .
and transient weakness”; remained “oriented to time, place, person and situation”;
exhibited “normal insight . . . [and] normal judgment”; “demonstrat[ed] the
appropriate mood and affect”; experienced no complications with his eyes or ears;
had an “intact” memory; and had “[n]o sensory loss.” The record supports the
administrative law judge’s adverse credibility ruling. See Mitchell, 771 F.3d at 782.
Grant’s argument for a remand predicated on Social Security Ruling 16-3p is
foreclosed by our recent decision in Hargress v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 874
4
Case: 17-12448 Date Filed: 01/29/2018 Page: 5 of 5
F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2017). As Grant acknowledges, Ruling 16-3p became
effective on March 28, 2016, almost two years after the denial of his application
for benefits. Because we held in Hargress that “SSR 16-3p applies only
prospectively[, it] . . . does not provide a basis for [Grant to obtain a] remand.” Id.
at 1290.
We AFFIRM the judgment against Grant.
5