[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-16419 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 2, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-00340-CV-J-34-TEM
LEEANN O'BIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(July 2, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lee Ann O'Bier appeals the judgment of the district court affirming the
Commissioner's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits, 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). She argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred by
making a determination, at step two of the five-step analysis used to determine
disability benefits, that her depression was not severe. O’Bier elaborates that the
only impairments that fail at step two are impairments that are minimal or
insignificant, and that her depression was significant, as evidenced by the fact that
she was diagnosed with depression, and prescribed anti-depressant medication.
We conduct a limited review of an ALJ’s decision “to determine if it is
supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.” Crawford
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (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.
An ALJ has a basic obligation to develop a full and fair record. Ellison v.
Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003). A full and fair record enables the
reviewing court “to determine whether the ultimate decision on the merits is
rational and supported by substantial evidence.” Welch v. Bowen, 854 F.2d 436,
440 (11th Cir. 1988) (internal quotations and citations omitted). We reverse when
the ALJ has failed to “provide the reviewing court with sufficient reasoning for
determining that the proper legal analysis has been conducted.” Keeton v. Dep’t of
2
Health and Human Services, 21 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 1994).
At the second step of the five-step analysis, the claimant bears the burden of
proving that she has a severe impairment or combination of impairments. Jones v.
Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999). An impairment is not severe if it
does not significantly limit the claimant’s physical or mental ability to do basic
work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a); Crayton v. Callahan, 120 F.3d 1217,
1219 (11th Cir. 1997). “Basic work activities” include: physical functions such as
walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pulling, reaching, carrying, or handling;
capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking; understanding, carrying out, and
remembering simple instructions; use of judgment; responding appropriately to
supervision, co-workers, and usual work situations; and dealing with changes in a
routine work setting. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b). An impairment is not severe only
if the abnormality is so slight and its effect so minimal that it would clearly not be
expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age,
education, or work experience. McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026, 1031 (11th
Cir. 1986). It is a threshold inquiry where only the most trivial impairments are
rejected. Id. “The claimant’s burden at step two is mild.” Id.
If the ALJ fails to articulate reasons for rejecting a claimant’s testimony, that
testimony must be accepted as true. Foote v. Charter, 67 F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th
3
Cir. 1995). Likewise, a treating physician’s testimony must be given substantial or
considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary. Crawford, 363
F.3d at 1159; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating that, generally, more weight
is given to opinions from treating sources). The ALJ must state with particularity
the weight given the different medical opinions and the reasons therefor. Sharfarz
v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987); MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d
1050, 1053 (11th Cir. 1986). An ALJ does not need to give a treating physician’s
opinion considerable weight, however, if the claimant’s own testimony regarding
her daily activities contradicts that opinion. Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232,
1241 (11th Cir. 2004).
Taken alone, the opinion of a non-examining physician does not constitute
substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision. Swindle v. Sullivan,
914 F.2d 222, 226 n.3 (11th Cir. 1990); Sharfarz, 825 F.2d at 280. The ALJ may
consider the reports and assessments of state agency physicians as expert opinions.
20 C.F.R. § 416.927(f)(2)(i). An ALJ may reject any medical opinion if the
evidence supports a contrary finding. Sharfarz, 825 F.2d at 280.
The ALJ did not make an adverse credibility finding with regard to O’Bier’s
testimony about her depression. Therefore, we must accept that part of her
testimony as true. O’Bier’s testimony, combined with some of the medical
4
evidence in the record, contradicts the ALJ’s finding that O’Bier’s depression was
not a severe impairment. Because the ALJ in this case did not provide sufficient
elaboration with regard to how he made his findings about O’Bier’s depression, we
are unable to properly exercise our role as a reviewing court in evaluating O’Bier’s
claims. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s decision and remand it with the
instruction that the court vacate the Commissioner’s decision and remand the case
for further development of the record.
VACATED and REMANDED.
5