Ashley Sullivan v. Commissioner of Social Securit

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Ashley Nicole Sullivan. 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: 16-16896

Date Filed: 05/23/2017

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16896
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-01445-MCR
ASHLEY NICOLE SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 23, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-16896

Date Filed: 05/23/2017

Page: 2 of 5

Ashley Nicole Sullivan appeals the district court’s order affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits. She argues the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to
adequately address the impact of her impaired fine motor speed, brachydactyly,
and syndactyly on her ability to work. She also argues the ALJ incorrectly credited
a medical opinion as supporting Sullivan’s ability to perform full time work. After
careful review, we affirm the district court.
I.
Sullivan applied for disability benefits on June 21, 2011, alleging a disability
onset date of November 1, 2010. After her application was denied, she requested
and received a hearing before an ALJ. Based on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the ALJ denied Sullivan benefits. Sullivan asked the Appeals Council to
review the ALJ’s decision, but it declined. As a result, the ALJ’s decision became
the final decision of the Commissioner. Sullivan then filed a complaint in the
district court seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision. The district court
affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. This appeal followed.
II.
We review the Commissioner’s decision to see if it is “supported by
substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.” Winschel v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). Substantial
2

Case: 16-16896

Date Filed: 05/23/2017

Page: 3 of 5

evidence means “more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable person would accept to support a conclusion.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Under this standard of review, we cannot “decide the facts anew, reweigh the
evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner.” Id. (quotation
omitted and alteration adopted). The person applying for disability must prove that
she is disabled. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam).
A.
Sullivan first argues the ALJ failed to adequately address her impaired fine
motor speed, brachydactyly, and syndactyly. 1 Specifically, she says the ALJ failed
to consider two doctors’ reports. The record shows, as Sullivan claims, that one
doctor said her “[f]ine motor speed was severely impaired bilaterally.” And
another diagnosed her with brachydactyly and syndactyly.
Ordinarily, we review the Commissioner’s decision to see if it is “supported
by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.” Winschel, 631 F.3d
at 1178 (quotation omitted). However, Sullivan did not allege these conditions in
her application nor did she raise them at her hearing before the ALJ. A claimant
applying for disability must prove that she is disabled. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211.
And Sullivan was represented by counsel at her hearing before the ALJ. Cf.
1

In simpler terms, brachydactyly is the shortening of the fingers and toes, and syndactyly
is the failure of fingers or toes to completely separate from each other.
3

Case: 16-16896

Date Filed: 05/23/2017

Page: 4 of 5

Brown v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 931, 934–35 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (noting that
where a claimant was not represented, the ALJ has a “special duty” to
“scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the
relevant facts” (quotation omitted)). In a case like this, persuasive authority
convinces us that this claim cannot proceed because Sullivan failed to allege it to
the ALJ and therefore could not have proven her disability on this basis. See Pena
v. Chater, 76 F.3d 906, 909 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding the ALJ had “no obligation to
investigate a claim not presented at the time of the application for benefits and not
offered at the hearing as a basis for disability” (quotation omitted)); see also
Robinson v. Astrue, 365 F. App’x 993, 995–96 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam)
(unpublished) (same); Street v. Barnhart, 133 F. App’x 621, 627–28 (11th Cir.
2005) (per curiam) (unpublished) (same). We therefore find no reversible error by
the ALJ on this claim.
B.
Sullivan next argues the ALJ erred by misreading a doctor’s opinion about
her ability to perform work. She says the ALJ incorrectly gave “great weight” to
the doctor’s statement that Sullivan could function at a “much more independent
level than her current activities suggest.” She points out that the doctor qualified
that statement by saying she was at an “extremely limited level of independence at

4

Case: 16-16896

Date Filed: 05/23/2017

Page: 5 of 5

this point” and that “this will most likely be a very gradual process.” As a result,
she claims the ALJ did not correctly credit this doctor’s opinion.
However, the record shows the ALJ considered the qualifications in the
doctor’s report. The ALJ pointed out the doctor diagnosed Sullivan with a learning
disorder and had noted Sullivan’s “slow speed of work,” “overly-child-like”
presentation, and tendency “to defer to her stepfather for any responses.” And the
ALJ also noted the doctor did not impose any mental work restrictions on Sullivan.
Because the doctor’s findings were consistent with the rest of the evidence, the
ALJ gave the findings “great weight.”
Our review in this case is limited. We cannot reweigh the evidence or
substitute our judgment for the ALJ’s. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178. This record
shows the ALJ considered the doctor’s findings, including the qualifications of
those findings, in making an assessment that fit with the rest of the evidence. On
this record, the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. See id. We
therefore affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.

5