Case: 12-12621 Date Filed: 11/26/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12621
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:10-cv-02880-VMC-TGW
JAMES CHAPMAN,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 26, 2012)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-12621 Date Filed: 11/26/2012 Page: 2 of 4
James Chapman, through counsel, appeals the district court=s order affirming
the Commissioner=s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits
(ADIB@). On appeal, Chapman argues that the decision of the administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) was not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ’s
hypothetical question to the Vocational Expert (“VE”) failed to incorporate all of
the findings of an examining psychologist, Dr. Hodan, regarding Chapman’s
mental limitations.
We review de novo the legal principles underlying the ALJ’s decision, but
review “the resulting decision only to determine whether it is supported by
substantial evidence.” Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence is defined as more “than a scintilla and is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir.
2004). We do not reweigh the evidence or substitute our own judgment for that of
the ALJ, even if we find that the evidence preponderates against the ALJ’s
decision. Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990).
The Social Security Regulations outline a five-step, Asequential@ evaluation
process used to determine whether a claimant is disabled: (1) whether the claimant
is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a
severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment
2
Case: 12-12621 Date Filed: 11/26/2012 Page: 3 of 4
meets or equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of
Impairments; (4) whether, based on an RFC assessment, the claimant can perform
any of his past relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are
significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform,
given the claimant=s RFC, age, education, and work experience. See Phillips v.
Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1237B39 (11th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R.
'' 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), 416.920(a)(1), (4)(i)-(v). RFC Ais an assessment, based
upon all of the relevant evidence, of a claimant=s remaining ability to do work
despite [his] impairments.@ Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir.
1997).
At step five, the Commissioner bears the burden to show that a significant
number of jobs exist in the national economy, which the claimant can perform.
Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1239; 20 C.F.R. '' 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). An
ALJ may make this determination either by applying the Medical Vocational
Guidelines or by obtaining the testimony of a vocational expert. Phillips, 357 F.3d
at 1239B40. AIn order for a vocational expert=s testimony to constitute substantial
evidence, the ALJ must pose a hypothetical question which comprises all of the
claimant=s impairments.@ Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1227 (11th Cir.
2002). The ALJ is not required to include findings in the hypothetical that the ALJ
3
Case: 12-12621 Date Filed: 11/26/2012 Page: 4 of 4
has found to be unsupported. Crawford v. Comm=r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155,
1161 (11th Cir. 2004).
The ALJ included all of the limitations it found credible and relevant in the
hypothetical to the VE, and the hypothetical fully accounted for Chapman=s mental
limitations. Consequently, the VE=s testimony answering the hypothetical
constituted substantial evidence, upon which the ALJ could properly find that jobs
existed in the national economy which Chapman could perform. Accordingly, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4