[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 2, 2007
No. 07-10576 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00053-CV-5
JOHN DAVID CARTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(July 2, 2007)
Before DUBINA, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John David Carter appeals the judgment of the district court that affirmed
the denial of Carter’s application for supplemental security income benefits. Carter
argues that the ALJ failed to review an unsworn statement of a coworker and
contends that the district court erred when it found that the ALJ implicitly
determined that the statement was not credible. Because the denial of Carter’s
application for supplemental security income was supported by substantial
evidence and the ALJ applied the correct legal standards, we affirm.
Carter filed an application for disability insurance and supplemental security
income benefits on April 21, 2003, and alleged that he became disabled on April 2,
2003, because of coronary vascular disease. At the hearing before the ALJ, Carter
testified that he had a heart condition that caused him to have high blood pressure
resulting in dizzy spells, shortness of breath, heart racing, chest pain,
lightheadedness, and extreme fatigue. Carter also submitted into the record an
unsworn statement from Terrie S. Culver, who worked with Carter at the Pierce
County Department of Family and Children’s Services, where Carter was required
to work as a recipient of benefits from the Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families program. Culver’s unsworn statement of one paragraph repeated Carter’s
complaints of “physical ailments as he suffers problems with breathing and reports
to us chest pain that has required him to leave and seek medical attention.” Culver
stated that Carter had been “unable to attend work [at their] site on some days due
2
to having medical problems associated with his heart condition.” After reviewing
the evidence, the ALJ concluded that Carter retained the residual functional
capacity to perform light work and found Carter not disabled. The ALJ stated in
his decision that he considered Carter’s subjective allegations of disability, but
found the allegations only partially credible. In making his findings, the ALJ
stated that he had carefully considered the entire record.
Carter commenced an action in the district court and alleged that the ALJ
improperly denied Carter’s claim for disability benefits. Carter argued that the
ALJ erred when it failed to consider Culver’s unsworn statement. The district
court concluded that, because Culver’s statement duplicated Carter’s subjective
testimony, the ALJ implicitly considered and discredited Culver’s statement in his
ultimate finding of no disability.
We review a social security appeal to determine whether the decision of the
ALJ is supported by substantial evidence and whether the ALJ applied the correct
legal standards. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363
F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence
as the reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Walden
v. Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835, 838 (11th Cir. 1982). We review de novo the decision
of the district court regarding whether substantial evidence supports the findings of
3
the ALJ. Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002).
The district court did not err when it concluded that the ALJ implicitly
determined that Culver’s unsworn statement was not credible. “[T]here is no rigid
requirement that the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of evidence in his
decision.” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). We do not
require an explicit finding about credibility; instead findings may be by implication
if they are “obvious to the reviewing court.” See Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d
1251, 1255 (11th Cir. 1983). Because Culver’s unsworn statement duplicated and
corroborated the subjective complaints and testimony of Carter and the ALJ
explicitly found that Carter’s testimony was not credible, it is obvious that the ALJ
rejected Culver’s unsworn statement by implication.
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
4