Thomas Grantham, Jr. v. Acting Commissioner of the So

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Thomas Jeffery Grantham, Jr.. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-15600

Date Filed: 07/11/2016

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15600
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:15-cv-00048-CJK
THOMAS JEFFERY GRANTHAM, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(July 11, 2016)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-15600

Date Filed: 07/11/2016

Page: 2 of 5

Thomas Grantham appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social
Security Administration’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits
and supplemental security income, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). As the sole
issue on appeal, Grantham argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred
by assigning little weight to a treating physician’s opinion.1
I
We normally review the Commissioner’s decision for substantial evidence.
Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011).
“Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. We may not
decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of
the [Commissioner].” Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
The ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion “substantial or
considerable weight” unless there is “good cause” not to do so. See Phillips v.
Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks
omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). “‘[G]ood cause’ exists when the:
(1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence
1

Grantham also attempts to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s decision issued pursuant to
consent jurisdiction—however, our review is limited to the agency decision. See Shinn ex rel.
Shinn v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 391 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir. 2004) (“We consider this appeal
essentially as if we were the district court, reviewing the ALJ’s ruling rather than the district
court judgment.”).
2

Case: 15-15600

Date Filed: 07/11/2016

Page: 3 of 5

supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or
inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1241. If
the ALJ articulates specific, legitimate reasons for assigning limited weight to a
treating physician’s opinion that demonstrates good cause, then we must conclude
such determination is supported by substantial evidence and there is no reversible
error. See Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam);
Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240. The ALJ also must consider the amount of knowledge
a treating source has about a patient’s impairments and the treatment the physician
has provided. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii).
II
The ALJ did not err by assigning little weight to Dr. Sarazin, Grantham’s
psychiatrist at Lakeview Center, Inc. (Lakeview), because the ALJ clearly
articulated reasons that established good cause to give his opinion less weight.
Grantham received mental health treatment at Lakeview beginning in February
2012, and continued for approximately one year. Erik Sternung, a registered nurse
practitioner working under Dr. Sarazin’s supervision, actually saw and examined
Grantham. Dr. Sarazin met with Grantham once, the week before being deposed,
“to get a better idea into his problems.”
The ALJ noted that Dr. Sarazin’s conclusions were inconsistent with other
parts of the record, including treatment notes from Dr. Sarazin’s facility and
3

Case: 15-15600

Date Filed: 07/11/2016

Page: 4 of 5

Grantham’s own testimony. See Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1241. For example, Dr.
Sarazin characterized Grantham as “hav[ing] marked and extreme difficulties” in
dealing with the public and others because “he easily get [sic] frustrated around
people, feeling that they are about to get him or harm him,” while Grantham
himself testified that he regularly attended Church services, Sunday school, Bible
study, and shopping trips with no severe impact on social functioning due to his
depression. See id. at 1241 & n.9 (concluding substantial evidence supported
ALJ’s decision to give limited weight to treating physician’s opinion when it was
“contrary to [claimant]’s admissions concerning her activities”).
Additionally, Dr. Sarazin’s opinion is at odds with his own facility’s
treatment record. Dr. Sarazin opined that Grantham exhibits debilitating paranoia
and loss of focus. But Grantham’s treatment at Lakeview was limited, and
Sternung never prescribed counseling, therapy, or any specific treatment for
chronic anxiety, paranoia, or post-traumatic stress. See Edwards v. Sullivan, 937
F.2d 580, 584 (11th Cir. 1991) (good cause existed to disregard treating
physician’s opinion when record lacked objective medical evidence to support that
opinion). In fact, Sternung’s notes indicate successful treatment of Grantham’s
mental health complaints through medication. Therefore, Dr. Sarazin’s opinion
proves inconsistent with Lakeview’s record, supporting the ALJ’s finding of good
cause to limit its weight. See Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1241.
4

Case: 15-15600

Date Filed: 07/11/2016

Page: 5 of 5

III
The ALJ has articulated sufficient “relevant evidence [that] a reasonable
person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion” that Dr. Sarazin’s
opinion was entitled to little weight. 2 See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178.
Accordingly, the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income is
AFFIRMED.

2

Even if the ALJ incorrectly stated certain facts regarding Grantham’s psychiatric
hospitalization history and seizure disorder in support of his conclusion, he provided other
factors that indicate there was more than a scintilla of relevant evidence in support of the
conclusion that Dr. Sarazin’s opinion was entitled to little weight. See Crawford v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158–59 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (“Even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings, we must
affirm if the decision reached is supported by substantial evidence.”).
5