Marcus Raper v. Commissioner of Social Security

[PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11103
____________________
MARCUS RAPER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 5:20-cv-00597-PRL
____________________
Before L UCK , L AGOA , and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 1 of 34

-- 1 of 34 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:
Marcus Raper appeals the Magistrate Judge’s order affirm-
ing the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) 2020 denial of his
claim for disability insurance benefits.1 First, Raper argues that the
Supreme Court’s holding in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commis-
sion, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2055 (2018), requires that his case be remanded
to a different administrative law judge (ALJ). He contends that alt-
hough the ALJ had been constitutionally appointed by the time he
reheard his case in 2020, the ALJ was not constitutionally appointed
under the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, when
he first decided his case in 2017.2 Second, Raper argues that the
ALJ erred by not clearly articulating good cause for discounting his
treating physician’s opinion because the ALJ’s rationale that the
opinion was inconsistent with the record was conclusory. Third,
Raper argues that the ALJ erred by partially discrediting his subjec-
tive complaints of pain because the ALJ did not reference what ev-
idence conflicted with his testimony and only discussed objective
medical evidence.
1 The parties consented to have the Magistrate Judge issue final judgment.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (“Upon the consent of the parties, a full-time United
States magistrate judge . . . may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or
nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case . . . .”); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 73(a) (“When authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), a magistrate judge
may, if all parties consent, conduct a civil action or proceeding . . . .”).
2 As explained below, the ALJ issued a partially favorable decision in 2017 and
found that Raper became disabled on August 8, 2017, but was not disabled
before that date.
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 2 of 34

-- 2 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 3
After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument,
we affirm. Under these facts, there was no commensurate Ap-
pointments Clause violation in the ALJ’s 2020 decision. The ALJ
also articulated good cause for discounting the treating physician’s
opinion because—when the ALJ’s decision is read as a whole—it is
clear why the ALJ found the opinion inconsistent with the record.
And the ALJ did not err in partially discrediting Raper’s subjective
complaints because he applied the correct legal standard and did
not rely solely on objective medical evidence.
I. Background
In March 2015, Raper applied for Social Security disability
insurance benefits. He alleged that he became disabled and
stopped working on December 31, 2013, because of high blood
pressure, high cholesterol, sleep apnea, back pain with muscle
spasms, and eye degeneration. Raper’s claim was denied initially
and upon reconsideration. Raper requested a hearing, which was
held on August 8, 2017, before ALJ Kevin J. Detherage.
A. First ALJ Decision
In October 2017, the ALJ issued a partially favorable deci-
sion. He found that Raper became disabled on August 8, 2017, but
was not disabled before that date. Raper requested review, but the
Appeals Council denied his request. The Appeals Council’s denial
made the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner.
Raper appealed to the District Court. Later, the Commis-
sioner moved to reverse and remand under sentence four of
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to instruct the ALJ “to obtain supplemental
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 3 of 34

-- 3 of 34 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
vocational expert testimony to clarify the effect of the assessed lim-
itations on [Raper’s] occupational base for the period prior to Au-
gust 8, 2017.” With no objection from Raper, the District Court
granted the Commissioner’s motion.
On remand, the Appeals Council affirmed the favorable por-
tion of the ALJ’s decision finding that Raper was disabled begin-
ning on August 8, 2017. The Appeals Council also vacated the ALJ’s
findings related to the time before that date and remanded to the
ALJ to obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert
(VE).
B. Second ALJ Decision
On September 16, 2020, Raper had a second hearing before
the same ALJ. There, Raper testified in detail about his pain, its
effect on his life, and his treatment from his neurosurgeon, Dr. Ni-
zam Razack.3 And, as directed by the Appeals Council, a VE testi-
fied.
A month later, the ALJ issued his second decision. The ALJ
determined that Raper was not disabled between December 31,
2013, and August 7, 2017, and denied Raper’s claim for disability
benefits. To support his decision, the ALJ conducted the five-step
3 Among other things, Raper testified that he stopped umpiring in October
2013 because he “couldn’t even stand.” He also testified that he used a cane
between his first and second surgeries, could walk fifteen to twenty minutes
maximum, used a wheelchair between his second and third surgeries, could
lift only fifteen pounds, could balance for only a few minutes, and could sit for
only twenty to twenty-five minutes.
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 4 of 34

-- 4 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 5
sequential evaluation process under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) and
made these findings.
First, Raper had not been engaged in substantial gainful ac-
tivity between December 31, 2013, and August 7, 2017. Second,
Raper had the following severe impairments that limited his ability
to perform basic work activities: lumbar and cervical degenerative
disc disease, diabetes, obesity, foot drop, and depression. Third,
Raper did not have an impairment or combination of impairments
that met or medically equaled the severity of the ones listed in
20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, App. 1. Fourth, Raper had the residual
functional capacity (RFC) to perform simple and routine sedentary
work, subject to certain physical limitations. The ALJ found that
Raper’s complaints about the intensity, persistence, and limiting ef-
fects of his symptoms were inconsistent with the medical records.
Last, the ALJ determined that Raper was unable to perform any
past relevant work. However, based on the VE’s testimony, the ALJ
found that there were jobs in the national economy in which Raper
could work, such as an “Order clerk,” “Addresser,” or “Document
preparer.”4
The ALJ also discussed two medical opinions. The first was
from Dr. Girija Padmanabh, a state agency medical consultant.
4 See U.S. Dept. of Labor, Dictionary of Occupational Titles, § 209.567-014, Or-
der Clerk, Food and Beverage, 1991 WL 671794 (4th ed. 1991); id.
§ 209.587-010, Addresser, 1991 WL 671797; id. § 249.587-018, Document Pre-
parer, Microfilming.
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 5 of 34

-- 5 of 34 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
The second, dated November 4, 2015, was from an “unknown
source,” yet the ALJ assumed it was from a treating physician.5
Dr. Padmanabh reported that Raper could “lift and/or
carry” twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently. She
also stated that Raper could stand, “sit[,] and/or walk” six hours in
an eight-hour workday and that Raper had no manipulative, visual,
or communicative limitations. Dr. Padmanabh noted that Raper
has some postural limitations that limited his mobility. She con-
cluded that Raper was not disabled. The ALJ gave “some weight”
to Dr. Padmanabh’s opinion because of her expertise and review of
Raper’s file, but he found that “the record support[ed] greater ex-
ertional, postural[,] and manipulative limitations.” However, be-
cause of Raper’s reported progress from his latest back surgery, the
ALJ concluded that “limitations more stringent than sedentary
level [were] not warranted.”
The November 4, 2015, medical opinion reported that Raper
could: lift twenty pounds frequently; carry up to twenty pounds
occasionally; and sit, stand, and walk for two hours during an
eight-hour workday. It also noted that Raper could not operate
foot controls bilaterally and that Raper had several postural limita-
tions, which prevented Raper from climbing, stooping, kneeling,
crouching, and crawling. The ALJ gave this opinion “some weight”
but found that the “extreme limitations noted [were] not given
5 Raper alleges that Dr. Razack wrote the November 4, 2015, medical opinion.
The signature on the opinion is illegible, but Raper testified Dr. Razack wrote
it.
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 6 of 34

-- 6 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 7
weight due to their inconsistency with the records.” The ALJ
added that the functional limitations that Raper alleged in his testi-
mony were “disproportionate to the clinical findings.”
C. Magistrate Judge’s Order
Rather than seek review from the Appeals Council, Raper
filed another complaint in the District Court, seeking reversal or
remand. The Commissioner answered and denied Raper’s asser-
tions.
In his brief before the Magistrate Judge, Raper made three
arguments. First, he argued that the ALJ failed to apply the correct
legal standard to the November 4, 2015, medical opinion about his
limitations. He asserted that the ALJ’s decision to not accord the
opinion substantial weight because it was inconsistent with the rec-
ord was conclusory. Additionally, he explained that the ALJ incor-
rectly attributed the opinion to “an unknown source” despite
Raper’s testimony that it was Dr. Razack’s opinion.
Second, Raper claimed that the ALJ applied the incorrect le-
gal standard when evaluating his allegations of pain and limita-
tions. He argued that the ALJ discounted his testimony about his
limitations based solely on the objective medical evidence and over-
looked any other factor.
Third, Raper argued that the SSA should have reassigned his
case to a properly appointed ALJ under the Appointments Clause.
He noted that, since Lucia, the SSA conceded that its ALJs were
subject to the Appointments Clause and ratified the appointment
of its current ALJs on July 16, 2018. He also explained that his
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 7 of 34

-- 7 of 34 --

8 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
original hearing was held in April 2018 before ALJ Detherage, who
had not been constitutionally appointed. Thus, when the District
Court remanded, it should have instructed the Commissioner to
remand to a different ALJ who had been constitutionally ap-
pointed. He also argued that, under Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83, 95
(2021), he was not required to exhaust this issue before the ALJ at
the 2020 hearing because ALJs are ill-suited to address constitu-
tional challenges and he would have been powerless to grant the
requested relief. Because of these alleged errors, Raper asserted
that reversal for an award of benefits was the appropriate remedy.
The Magistrate Judge affirmed the Commissioner’s deci-
sion. First, the Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ properly con-
sidered the November 4, 2015, medical opinion. The Magistrate
Judge acknowledged that the ALJ stated the opinion was from “an
unknown source,” but the ALJ also “expressly assumed it was from
a treating source.” The Magistrate Judge thus treated the opinion
as Dr. Razack’s. The Magistrate Judge also noted that the opinion
was a checklist opinion, and that checklist opinions are generally
disfavored.
Next, the Magistrate Judge rejected Raper’s contention that
the ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. Razack’s opinion was conclusory.
The Magistrate Judge explained that the ALJ discussed the objec-
tive medical evidence in detail throughout his decision and pro-
vided several examples of why Dr. Razack’s assessment was incon-
sistent. Further, the Magistrate Judge stated that the ALJ discussed
Dr. Razack’s opinion immediately after he discussed the state
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 8 of 34

-- 8 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 9
agency’s RFC determination, so the ALJ properly considered the
record as a whole. It was therefore unnecessary for the ALJ to reit-
erate those records when discounting Dr. Razack’s opinion.
Second, the Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ properly
considered Raper’s subjective complaints of pain because he stated
that his statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting ef-
fects of the symptoms conflicted with the medical evidence and
other evidence. The Magistrate Judge noted that the ALJ explicitly
explained that he considered Raper’s subjective complaints relative
to the record, including Raper’s back surgery records and the state’s
medical consultant’s opinion. The Magistrate Judge found that
substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s evaluation of Raper’s con-
dition and the credibility determination.
Third, the Magistrate Judge rejected Raper’s argument that
the SSA’s failure to remand his case to a different ALJ was an Ap-
pointments Clause violation. The Magistrate Judge agreed with
the Commissioner that the only ALJ decision under review was the
October 2020 decision and noted that a number of district courts
have rejected similar arguments. Raper timely appealed.
II. Legal Standards
“A few different standards of review govern this appeal.” In-
gram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir.
2007). First, “[w]e review questions of constitutional law de novo.”
Benning v. Comm’r, Ga. Dep’t of Corrs., 71 F.4th 1324, 1328 (11th Cir.
2023). Second, “[w]hen an ALJ denies benefits and the Appeals
Council denies review, ‘we review the ALJ’s decision as the
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 9 of 34

-- 9 of 34 --

10 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
Commissioner’s final decision.’” Samuels v. Acting Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 959 F.3d 1042, 1045 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Doughty v. Apfel,
245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001)). “[W]e review de novo the legal
principles upon which the Commissioner’s decision is based.”
Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
“However, we review the [Commissioner’s] decision only to deter-
mine whether it is supported by substantial evidence.” Id. “Sub-
stantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but rather such rele-
vant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. This limited review precludes deciding the
facts anew, making credibility determinations, or re-weighing the
evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). “Third, we also review de novo
the judgment of the district court.” Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1260.
III. Discussion
On appeal, Raper generally repeats the arguments he made
before the Magistrate Judge. We first discuss Raper’s Appoint-
ments Clause challenge. Next, we address whether the ALJ applied
the correct legal standard to the November 4, 2015, medical opin-
ion. Last, we analyze whether the ALJ applied the correct legal
standard to Raper’s testimony about his pain and limitations.
A. Appointments Clause
Raper first raises an Appointments Clause challenge. He ar-
gues that irrespective of the ALJ’s appointment status in 2020, the
ALJ’s participation in the case continued—rather than cured—the
Appointments Clause violation. Under Lucia, he contends that the
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 10 of 34

-- 10 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 11
SSA should have reassigned his 2020 case to a different ALJ. We
disagree.
“The Appointments Clause prescribes the exclusive means
of appointing ‘Officers.’” Lucia, 138 S. Ct. at 2051. Although prin-
cipal officers must be nominated by the President and confirmed
by the Senate, “the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of
such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone,
in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” U.S. Const.
art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
Not long ago, the Supreme Court held that ALJs of the Se-
curities and Exchange Commission (SEC) were “‘Officers of the
United States’ [rather than] simply employees of the Federal Gov-
ernment” for purposes of the Appointments Clause. See Lucia,
138 S. Ct. at 2049, 2051. In Lucia, the SEC instituted an administra-
tive proceeding against Raymond Lucia for violating the Invest-
ment Adviser’s Act and assigned the case to an ALJ. See id. at 2049–
50. Because the ALJ had been appointed by SEC staff members and
not the Commission, Lucia argued that the ALJ was not constitu-
tionally appointed. Id. at 2050.
Relevant here, Lucia discussed the appropriate remedy for
such an Appointments Clause violation. See id. at 2055. The Su-
preme Court explained that “the ‘appropriate’ remedy for an adju-
dication tainted with an appointments violation is a new ‘hearing
before a properly appointed’ official.” Id. (quoting Ryder v. United
States, 515 U.S. 177, 183, 188 (1995)). It added that the “official can-
not be [the original ALJ], even if he has by now received (or receives
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 11 of 34

-- 11 of 34 --

12 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
sometime in the future) a constitutional appointment.” Id. The
Supreme Court reasoned that because the original ALJ had “al-
ready both heard Lucia’s case and issued an initial decision on the
merits[, h]e [could not] be expected to consider the matter as
though he had not adjudicated [the case] before.” Id. Thus, “[t]o
cure the constitutional error, another ALJ (or the Commission it-
self )” was required to “hold the new hearing to which Lucia [was]
entitled.” Id.
Responding to Justice Breyer’s concurrence—that it would
be permissible for the same ALJ to hear Lucia’s case on remand—
the majority highlighted two remedial aims of Appointment
Clause violations. The majority explained that Appointments
Clause remedies (1) advance the structural purposes of the clause
and (2) incentivize litigants to raise Appointments Clause chal-
lenges. Id. at 2055 n.5. The majority reasoned these aims were best
accomplished by providing a successful litigant with a hearing be-
fore a new ALJ because “the old [ALJ] would have no reason to
think he did anything wrong on the merits—and so could be ex-
pected to reach all the same judgments.” Id. (citation omitted).6
6 The majority also noted that a new ALJ is not required “for every Appoint-
ments Clause violation.” Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2055 n.5 (2018). It rec-
ognized that remand to a new ALJ was possible “because other ALJs (and the
Commission) [were] available to hear this case.” Id. The majority also under-
stood that where the “Appointments Clause problem is with the Commission
itself, so that there is no substitute decisionmaker, the rule of necessity would
presumably kick in and allow the Commission to do the rehearing.” Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 12 of 34

-- 12 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 13
In response to Lucia, the SSA Acting Commissioner at the
time recognized that SSA ALJs were also “Officers” under the Ap-
pointments Clause, and she ratified their appointments on July 16,
2018. SSR 19-1p, 84 Fed. Reg. 9582, 9583 (Mar. 15, 2019). On March
15, 2019, the SSA announced that, in response to timely raised Ap-
pointments Clause challenges, the Appeals Council would vacate
pre-ratification ALJ decisions and “either remand the case to an ALJ
other than the ALJ who issued the decision under review, or issue
its own new decision about the claim covering the period before
the date of the ALJ’s decision.” Id. But this remedy was only avail-
able for claimants that timely raised Appointments Clause chal-
lenges to the Appeals Council. Id.
Most recently, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Carr,
593 U.S. 83. There the Supreme Court held that the Eighth and
Tenth Circuits “erred in imposing an issue-exhaustion requirement
on [the] petitioners’ Appointments Clause claims.” Id. at 96. The
Supreme Court further concluded that “[w]here . . . claimants are
not required to exhaust certain issues in administrative proceedings
to preserve them for judicial review, claimants who raise those is-
sues for the first time in federal court are not untimely in doing so.”
Id. at 95.
At first blush, it may appear that Lucia and Carr settle the
issue here. But Lucia and Carr dealt with situations different from
Raper’s. In Lucia, the issue was how to remedy an uncorrected Ap-
pointment Clause violation. There was no question about whether
there was a live Appointments Clause violation—an
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 13 of 34

-- 13 of 34 --

14 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
unconstitutionally appointed ALJ had issued the decision before
the Court. See 138 S. Ct. at 2051. Carr also dealt with an unreme-
died Appointments Clause violation. The issue there dealt with
how to properly raise the issue and whether the claimant first
needed to present it to the ALJ. See 593 U.S. at 86–87. But there
was no question that an unconstitutionally appointed ALJ had is-
sued the opinion before the Court.
Raper’s situation differs. An unconstitutionally appointed
ALJ issued the first decision, but that decision was vacated and re-
manded on the merits. When he issued his second decision—the
decision before this Court—the ALJ had been constitutionally ap-
pointed. Raper did not challenge the first decision based on the
Appointments Clause violation. So the issue here is not how to
remedy or timely raise an Appointments Clause violation; the issue
is whether there is an Appointments Clause violation at all.
Whether there is an Appointments Clause violation in situ-
ations like Raper’s is a matter of first impression in our Circuit.
Raper would have us follow the lead of the Ninth and Fourth Cir-
cuits, both of which applied Lucia in similar factual scenarios and
held that Appointments Clause violations existed. See Cody v. Ki-
jakazi, 48 F.4th 956 (9th Cir. 2022); Brooks v. Kijakazi, 60 F.4th 735
(4th Cir. 2023). We decline to do so.
In Cody, an unconstitutionally appointed SSA ALJ reviewed
and denied Cody’s claim. 48 F.4th at 958. Cody appealed to the
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 14 of 34

-- 14 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 15
district court7 without challenging the ALJ’s appointment. Id. The
district court vacated the ALJ’s decision and remanded for a new
hearing “because the ALJ failed to properly consider certain evi-
dence.” Id. The case returned to the same ALJ, who was now con-
stitutionally appointed. Id. “[T]he ALJ reached the same conclu-
sion—no benefits.” Id. Cody appealed again, this time raising an
Appointments Clause violation. Id. at 958–59. The district court
affirmed the ALJ and denied Cody’s Appointments Clause claim
because the ALJ’s first decision had been vacated and the ALJ was
properly appointed when she issued her second decision. Id. at
959–60.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that Cody was due a new
hearing before a different ALJ. Id. at 961. In its view, “Cody did
not receive what Lucia requires: an adjudication untainted by an
Appointments Clause violation.” Id. at 962. The Ninth Circuit rea-
soned that remanding the case to a new ALJ served the two reme-
dial aims of Lucia. Id. Even though the ALJ was constitutionally
appointed when she issued the second decision, it was “obvious
that the [first] decision tainted the [second] decision.” Id. The ALJ
“copied verbatim parts of the [first] decision into her [second] deci-
sion,” making it clear that she “didn’t take a fresh look at the case”
the second time around. Id. at 962–63.
In Brooks, the Fourth Circuit reached the same conclusion
based on similar facts. See 60 F.4th at 743–44. Brooks applied for
7 Cody’s appeal occurred shortly after Lucia. See Cody v. Kijakazi, 48 F.4th 956,
959 (9th Cir. 2022).
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 15 of 34

-- 15 of 34 --

16 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
Social Security benefits but was denied by an unconstitutionally ap-
pointed ALJ. Id. at 736. Brooks sought review from the Appeals
Council. Id. Following Lucia, the Appeals Council vacated the
ALJ’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 737.
Brooks had not raised, and the Appeals Council did not address, the
Appointments clause issue; instead, the Appeals Council identified
flaws in the ALJ’s decision. Id. On remand, the same ALJ—who
was now constitutionally appointed—again denied Brooks’s claim.
Id. After the Appeals Council denied review, Brooks appealed to a
federal district court. There, Brooks raised substantive issues with
the ALJ’s second decision and an Appointments Clause challenge.
Id. at 738. The district court affirmed the Commissioner’s denial
of Brooks’s disability benefits claim because it found that: (1) the
ALJ was properly appointed before the second decision; (2) the Ap-
peals Council’s vacatur of the ALJ’s first decision on the merits
eliminated Lucia’s remedy requirement; and (3) Lucia did not hold
that a new officer is required for every Appointments Clause viola-
tion. Id. at 738–39.
The Fourth Circuit reversed. Id. at 741–42, 744. It explained
that Cody was “practically on all-fours” and declined to reach a dif-
ferent conclusion. Id. at 742. In the Fourth Circuit’s view, because
Brooks never received the remedy Lucia required, the constitu-
tional error committed in the ALJ’s first decision “was a continuing
violation that infected” the ALJ’s second decision on the same
claim. Id. The Fourth Circuit added that the entire administrative
adjudication included the first flawed ALJ decision. Id. Thus, under
Lucia, the ALJ could not properly rule on Brooks’s claim. Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 16 of 34

-- 16 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 17
Notably, the Fourth Circuit also rejected the Commissioner’s argu-
ment that Lucia’s remedy was inapplicable when a constitutionally
infirm ALJ decision is vacated on the merits. Id. at 743. According
to the Fourth Circuit, Lucia “did not carve out any exception to the
remedy’s necessity” in that situation. Id. And because the ALJ had
heard and decided the merits of Brooks’s claim, there was a strong
possibility the ALJ “would resolve the issue identified by the Ap-
peals Council and, in the end, simply make the same ruling.” Id.
Which, as the Fourth Circuit noted, happened in the case. See id.
We respectfully disagree with the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.
The District Court’s merits-based vacatur of the ALJ’s 2017 Deci-
sion eliminated the taint of the unconstitutional appointment.
There is no live Appointments Clause violation, so there is no need
for a Lucia remedy. This is so for three reasons.
First, when a decision is vacated, it becomes void and has no
legal effect. See United States v. Sigma Int’l, Inc., 300 F.3d 1278, 1280
(11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).8 The ALJ essentially started fresh
when the District Court vacated the 2017 decision and remanded.
The decision before us now is the 2020 decision—not the 2017 de-
cision. When the ALJ began anew, the entire second administrative
8 See also Social Security Admin., Program Operations Manual System
(POMS), GN 03106.036 Court Remand Orders, https://perma.cc/3HTB-
RLKJ (“[A] court order vacating the prior decision and remanding the case to
the Commissioner voids the prior decision . . . and thus returns the case to
status of a claim ‘pending’ before SSA.”).
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 17 of 34

-- 17 of 34 --

18 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
adjudication was conducted by a constitutionally appointed ALJ,
which brings this case outside the bounds of Lucia.
Second, the remedy in Lucia served the purpose of encour-
aging claimants to raise Appointments Clause challenges and was
motivated by a concern that the old ALJ would have no reason to
think he did anything wrong on the merits. Lucia, 138 S. Ct. at 2055
n.5. Neither that purpose nor that concern are relevant here.
When the District Court vacated the 2017 decision and re-
manded the case, it was returned to an ALJ who was constitution-
ally appointed. There was no longer a constitutional violation to
remedy, so there was no need to incentivize raising one. Nor was
there any danger that the ALJ would lack notice of the deficiency
in his earlier decision—the District Court and the Appeals Council
explicitly told him what was wrong with the 2017 decision. Unlike
the ALJ in Cody, the ALJ here did not just adopt his earlier decision
verbatim. Nothing in the record suggests that he failed to take a
fresh look at Raper’s claim.
Third, our entire judicial system works on the premise that
a judge can set aside his or her earlier decision and look at a case
anew. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551 (1994) (“It has
long been regarded as normal and proper for a judge to sit in the
same case upon its remand . . . .”). For example, the Supreme
Court tells this Court what we got wrong, and the same panel re-
considers the case. This Court vacates and remands matters to dis-
trict courts as a matter of course—each time providing them with
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 18 of 34

-- 18 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 19
instructions on how they erred and how to proceed going forward.9
We see no reason to disrupt that system here because we do not
think this situation presents the same structural concerns as Lucia.
We therefore hold that there is no Appointments Clause vi-
olation when an earlier decision made by an unconstitutionally ap-
pointed ALJ is vacated on the merits and remanded to the same
ALJ, who is now constitutionally appointed.
B. Physician’s Opinion
Raper next argues that the ALJ erred because he failed to ap-
ply the correct legal standards to the November 4, 2015, medical
opinion and made findings not supported by substantial evidence.
As an initial point, Raper asserts that the ALJ’s failure to
acknowledge that this was Dr. Razack’s opinion prevents us from
conducting meaningful review. He contends that the ALJ’s finding
that the opinion was inconsistent with the record is conclusory and
fails to provide good cause for rejecting it. Finally, Raper asserts
that the Magistrate Judge erred by finding that the ALJ’s prior dis-
cussion of the evidence clearly articulated the ALJ’s reason for dis-
counting the opinion.
In response, the Commissioner argues that it is ambiguous
whether the November 4, 2015, medical opinion was written by
9 Only in rare circumstances do we remand to a different district court judge.
For example, when the district court judge would have difficulty putting aside
his or her previous views and findings. See, e.g., Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc.,
990 F.2d 1217, 1230 (11th Cir. 1993); United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441,
1446–47 (11th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 19 of 34

-- 19 of 34 --

20 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
Dr. Razack. Regardless, the Commissioner notes that the ALJ as-
sumed it was from a treating source. Next, the Commissioner con-
tends that the ALJ had good cause for discounting the opinion; the
ALJ found that it was inconsistent with the record. The Commis-
sioner argues that the ALJ clearly articulated sufficient factual sup-
port for that reason based on his preceding discussion of the record,
which the ALJ found supported a sedentary RFC. According to the
Commissioner, nothing requires the ALJ to repeat his entire factual
analysis of the evidence to be legally sufficient. We agree with the
Commissioner.
As explained above, our review of the Commissioner’s deci-
sion is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the deci-
sion and whether the correct legal standards were applied. See Win-
schel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). “An
individual claiming Social Security disability benefits must prove
that []he is disabled.” Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211. To determine
whether a claimant is disabled, the Social Security regulations man-
date a five-step sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(a)(4); Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178.
Relevant here is step four. There, the ALJ formulates the
claimant’s RFC by considering a claimant’s “ability to meet the
physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.”
20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(4). The RFC is the most a claimant can still
do despite his or her restrictions. Id. § 404.1545(a)(1). To deter-
mine what a claimant can still do, the ALJ examines all “relevant
medical and other evidence.” Id. § 404.1545(a)(3). Evidence
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 20 of 34

-- 20 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 21
includes (1) statements from medical sources and (2) descriptions
and observations from the claimant and the claimant’s “family,
neighbors, friends, or other persons.” Id. Based on that evidence,
the ALJ determines what classification of jobs the claimant can per-
form. See id. § 404.1567. Pertinent here is the sedentary classifica-
tion. A sedentary job classification is the lowest physical exertion
requirement that an ALJ can assess in making a disability determi-
nation. See id. § 404.1567(a).10
For claims filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ must “give
more weight to [the] medical opinions” of a claimant’s treating
physicians unless good cause is shown to the contrary.
Id. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
935 F.3d 1245, 1259 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). “Good cause ex-
ists when (1) the treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by
the evidence, (2) the evidence supported a contrary finding, or
(3) the treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent
with his or her own medical records.” Schink, 935 F.3d at 1259.
“[T]he ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight
10 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) explains that
[s]edentary work involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a
time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket
files, ledgers, and small tools. Although a sedentary job is de-
fined as one which involves sitting, a certain amount of walk-
ing and standing is often necessary in carrying out job duties.
Jobs are sedentary if walking and standing are required occa-
sionally and other sedentary criteria are met.
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 21 of 34

-- 21 of 34 --

22 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
to the opinion of a treating physician. The failure to do so is re-
versible error.” Id. (citations omitted).
Raper’s initial point—that the ALJ’s failure to acknowledge
that Dr. Razack wrote the November 4, 2015, medical opinion pre-
vents us from conducting meaningful review—was raised for the
first time in his reply brief. We have repeatedly held that “[i]ssues
not raised in an initial brief are deemed forfeited and will not be
addressed absent extraordinary circumstances.” Anthony v. Georgia,
69 F.4th 796, 807 (11th Cir. 2023); see also Sapuppo v. Allstate Florid-
ian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases stat-
ing the same). Extraordinary circumstances include situations in
which:
(1) the issue involves a pure question of law and re-
fusal to consider it would result in a miscarriage of
justice; (2) the party lacked an opportunity to raise
the issue at the district court level; (3) the interest of
substantial justice is at stake; (4) the proper resolution
is beyond any doubt; or (5) the issue presents signifi-
cant questions of general impact or of great public
concern.
United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (en
banc), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 95 (2022). None of these circumstances
are present here. We therefore decline to address this argument.11
11 At best, the ALJ’s failure to attribute the November 4, 2015, medical opinion
to Dr. Razack was harmless error. Remand is unwarranted unless an error
creates fundamental unfairness or prejudice. See Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726,
728 (11th Cir. 1983) (describing the ALJ’s errors as “harmless” because they
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 22 of 34

-- 22 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 23
As for Raper’s other arguments, the parties argue past each
other. Though Raper uses the phrase “substantial evidence,”12 his
argument is that the ALJ legally erred by failing to clearly articulate
why he assigned no weight to the November 4, 2015, medical opin-
ion’s RFC finding. The Commissioner addresses Raper’s argument
but frames her analysis by arguing that the ALJ’s RFC finding was
supported by substantial evidence as shown by the ALJ’s previous
discussion of the record. Raper’s argument relies on the legal
standard on which the ALJ’s decision was based, not its factual un-
derpinnings.13 Thus, de novo—not substantial evidence—review
were “irrelevant” to the ALJ’s analysis of the relevant factors). “[T]he burden
of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the
agency’s determination.” Viverette v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 13 F.4th 1309, 1317–
18 (11th Cir. 2021) (alteration in original) (quoting Shinseki v. Sanders,
556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009)). Given that the ALJ assumed the opinion was from
a treating physician—and therefore subject to the old treating physician rule—
Raper has not met his burden here.
12 Raper has forfeited any attempt at a substantial evidence argument. Only
in his reply does he clarify his argument that substantial evidence does not
support the ALJ’s finding that the November 4, 2015, medical opinion was
from an “unknown source.” See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (noting that an
argument must contain the “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them,
with citations to the authorities and the parts of the record on which the appel-
lant relies” (emphasis added)); see also Harner v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r,
38 F.4th 892, 899 (11th Cir. 2022) (“An appellant forfeits an issue when [he]
‘raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and author-
ity.’” (quoting Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir.
2014))). As noted above, Raper does not dispute that the signature on the form
is illegible.
13 Raper also argues that it would be improper to affirm based on the Magis-
trate Judge’s acknowledgment that the November 4, 2015, medical opinion
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 23 of 34

-- 23 of 34 --

24 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
applies. See Simon v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 7 F.4th 1094, 1103
(11th Cir. 2021).
The ALJ’s stated reason for discounting the November 4,
2015, medical opinion—that it was inconsistent with the medical
records—was adequate and amounts to good cause. See Hargress v.
Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 883 F.3d 1302, 1306 (11th Cir. 2018) (per
curiam) (“The ALJ’s stated reason for discounting Dr. Odjegba’s
opinion—that it was inconsistent with his own medical records and
the record as a whole—was adequate and amounts to good
cause.”). The ALJ’s finding that the extreme limitations in the No-
vember 4, 2015, medical opinion were inconsistent with the record
must be viewed in context. This finding was reached following the
ALJ’s detailed discussion of the evidentiary record of Raper’s im-
pairments, including various physical examination records.
Among other examination records, the ALJ discussed treat-
ment notes from Dr. Razack, Dr. Vivian Woodward (another
treating physician), and Dr. Padmanabh as follows. At a March
2015 examination, Dr. Razack reported that Raper “raised from a
seated position without difficulty, and ambulated with the assis-
tance of a cane.” A month later, Dr. Razack noted that Raper was
in good strength in his lower extremities, ambulated without assis-
tive devices, and was advised to increase his activity levels. And, in
October 2015, Dr. Razack reported that Raper’s exam was stable
was a “checklist opinion” and such opinions are generally disfavored. We
need not address this argument because we conclude below that the ALJ did
not err in discounting this opinion.
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 24 of 34

-- 24 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 25
but that Raper complained of low back pain if he sat or stood for
prolonged periods.
Like Dr. Razack, Dr. Woodward noted in her March 2015
records that Raper had a “normal gate,” his “balance was easy,” and
his “posture was within normal limits.”
Last—and right before discounting the November 4, 2015,
medical opinion—the ALJ discussed Dr. Padmanabh’s RFC assess-
ment. As explained above, Dr. Padmanabh concluded that Raper
could stand, sit, and walk six hours in an eight-hour workday, as
well as lift and carry twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds
frequently. Dr. Padmanabh also concluded that Raper had no ma-
nipulative limitations but had some postural limitations—though
the ALJ found that the record supported greater limitations.
Contrary to Raper’s argument, it is not as if the ALJ provided
“no explanation” and there is “no obvious reason for the incon-
sistency in sight.” See Schink, 935 F.3d at 1261. We agree with our
sister circuits that “it is proper to read the ALJ’s decision as a whole,
and . . . it would be a needless formality to have the ALJ repeat sub-
stantially similar factual analyses” in this circumstance. See Rice v.
Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363, 370 n.5 (7th Cir. 2004); Jones v. Barnhart,
364 F.3d 501, 505 (3d Cir. 2004) (holding that the ALJ’s decision
read as a whole, contained sufficient explanation for his finding at
step three because the ALJ was not required “to use particular lan-
guage or adhere to a particular format in conducting his analysis”).
This rationale comports with Winschel’s requirement for
ALJs to state with particularity the weight given to a treating
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 25 of 34

-- 25 of 34 --

26 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
physician’s opinion or to clearly articulate grounds for rejecting a
treating physician’s opinion. See 631 F.3d at 1179. In Winschel, this
Court was concerned that, in the absence of such a statement, it
would be impossible to assess whether the ALJ’s decision was ra-
tional and supported by substantial evidence. See id. We do not
face that impossibility here. The ALJ explained the weight he af-
forded the November 4, 2015, medical opinion and that he did not
give the extreme limitations weight due to their inconsistency with
the records. Though the ALJ did not repeat his discussion of those
records in the same paragraph, he thoroughly discussed those rec-
ords in the immediately preceding paragraphs where he deter-
mined that the records supported a sedentary RFC. Short of
re-summarizing or adding an internal citation to those paragraphs,
it is hard to imagine how the ALJ could have been clearer.14
14 The exact level of clarity required in an ALJ’s statement in similar circum-
stances has been discussed extensively—at least in our unpublished decisions.
See Delgado v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-14234, 2021 WL 4099237, at *7 (11th
Cir. Sept. 9, 2021) (Branch, J., dissenting) (concluding that the ALJ clearly ar-
ticulated a specific justification for giving less weight to a treating physician’s
opinion under similar circumstances); Kaplowitz v. Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
806 F. App’x 711, 717 (11th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (holding that the ALJ’s fail-
ure to explicitly state the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion was
harmless error because it was clear that the ALJ considered the opinion and
rejected it based on contrary evidence); Stewart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,
746 F. App’x 851, 855–56 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (holding that the ALJ
failed to clearly articulate reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opin-
ion, in part, because the ALJ failed to specify how the physician’s opinion was
undercut); cf. Martin v. Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-11532,
2022 WL 1486387, at *6 (11th Cir. May 11, 2022) (per curiam) (holding that the
ALJ satisfied the requirement to state with particularity the weight afforded to
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 26 of 34

-- 26 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 27
C. Raper’s Subjective Complaints
Raper’s final argument is that the ALJ applied the incorrect
legal standard to his own testimony about his pain and limitations.
He asserts that the ALJ failed to apply the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)
factors when evaluating his subjective complaints and only relied
on objective medical evidence.15
The Commissioner contends that Raper’s legal error argu-
ment fails for two reasons. First, the Commissioner asserts that the
ALJ did not discount Raper’s testimony because it was unsubstan-
tiated by the objective medical evidence; the ALJ did so because
a treating physician’s opinion despite not using specific terms). We emphasize
that there are no magic words to state with particularity the weight given to
medical opinions or the reasons for discounting them. What matters is
whether the ALJ “state[s] with at least some measure of clarity the grounds for
his [or her] decision.” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th
Cir. 2011) (quoting Owens v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1984) (per
curiam)).
15 Raper also, again, makes a passing argument that the ALJ “made findings
not supported by substantial evidence.” The Commissioner argues that sub-
stantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Raper’s subjective complaints
about his pain and limitations were not fully consistent with the record. The
Commissioner notes that Raper does not refute this finding and has thus for-
feited that issue.
“Merely making passing references to a claim . . . is insufficient. Instead,
the party must clearly and unambiguously demarcate the specific claim and
devote a discrete section of his argument to it so the court may properly con-
sider it.” Brown v. United States, 720 F.3d 1316, 1332 (11th Cir. 2013) (citation
omitted); see also Harner, 38 F.4th at 898–98; Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Raper
has therefore forfeited this argument and we do not consider it.
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 27 of 34

-- 27 of 34 --

28 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
Raper’s testimony was inconsistent with the objective medical ev-
idence. Second, the Commissioner contends that the ALJ did not
rely solely on objective medical evidence because he discussed
Raper’s testimony, his treatments, and their effectiveness, his re-
ports to his treating physicians, and medical source opinions. We
again agree with the Commissioner.
To establish a disability based on testimony of pain and
other symptoms, a claimant must show: “(1) evidence of an under-
lying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evi-
dence confirming the severity of the alleged pain; or (b) that the
objectively determined medical condition can reasonably be ex-
pected to give rise to the claimed pain.” Wilson v. Barnhart,
284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). “The claimant’s
subjective testimony supported by medical evidence that satisfies
the standard is itself sufficient to support a finding of disability.”
Holt v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
“[I]n certain situations, pain alone can be disabling, even when its
existence is unsupported by objective evidence.” Foote v. Chater,
67 F.3d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
When evaluating a claimant’s statements as to the intensity
of his symptoms, the ALJ considers: (1) the claimant’s daily activi-
ties; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the
claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) any precipitating and aggra-
vating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of
medication; (5) the claimant’s treatments other than medication;
(6) any measures used to relieve pain; and (7) other factors
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 28 of 34

-- 28 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 29
concerning a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions
based on pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(i)–
(vii). The ALJ must consider these factors in relation to other evi-
dence in the record and whether the claimant’s statements conflict
with other evidence. Id. § 416.929(c)(4).
We will not disturb a clearly articulated credibility finding if
supported by substantial evidence. Foote, 67 F.3d at 1562. The ALJ
need not discuss every piece of evidence if the ALJ’s decision is not
a broad rejection and there is enough for us to conclude that the
ALJ considered the claimant’s medical condition as a whole. Dyer
v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam);
see also Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585, 590 (11th Cir. 1987) (“In
these cases ‘our function is to ensure that the decision was based
on a reasonable and consistently applied standard, and was care-
fully considered in light of all the relevant facts.’” (quoting Parker v.
Bowen, 788 F.2d 1512, 1521 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc))).
Where “proof of a disability is based upon subjective evi-
dence and a credibility determination is, therefore, a critical factor
to the Secretary’s decision, the ALJ must either explicitly discredit
such testimony or the implication [from the ALJ’s opinion] must
be so clear as to amount to a specific credibility finding.” Foote,
67 F.3d at 1562 (quoting Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 1251, 1255
(11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam)). “A lack of an explicit credibility find-
ing becomes a ground for remand when credibility is critical to the
outcome of the case.” Id. But remand is unwarranted unless an
error shows “unfairness” or “clear prejudice.” See Edwards v.
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 29 of 34

-- 29 of 34 --

30 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 586 (11th Cir. 1991) (affirming Commis-
sioner’s decision denying disability benefits where the claimant was
not adequately informed of her right to counsel because the Com-
missioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence appear-
ing in the record as a whole and the claimant did not show that she
was prejudiced by the error).
For example, in Foote, we remanded because the ALJ failed
to make an adequate explicit or implicit credibility finding in dis-
crediting the claimant’s testimony on the extent of her pain.
67 F.3d at 1562–63. We explained that a credibility finding was cru-
cial to assessing the claimant’s subjective complaints to determine
her overall RFC. Id. at 1562. But the ALJ identified no inconsist-
encies between the claimant’s statements to her physicians and
those made on her disability benefits application or at her adminis-
trative hearing, and no VE was called to determine her realistic
ability to find work. Id.
In discounting Raper’s testimony, the ALJ neither failed to
apply the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) factors nor relied solely on ob-
jective medical evidence. To be clear, the ALJ discredited Raper’s
testimony because he observed that Raper’s “medically determina-
ble impairments could reasonably be expected to cause [his] alleged
symptoms; however, [Raper’s] statements concerning the inten-
sity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms [were] not
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 30 of 34

-- 30 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 31
entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence
in the record.”16
The ALJ’s decision shows that he considered, in addition to
the objective medical evidence, Raper’s responses in agency ques-
tionnaires and the specifics of Raper’s testimony at the hearing.
The ALJ explained that in his agency questionnaire responses,
Raper “alleged debilitating physical and mental symptoms,” includ-
ing “difficulty with lifting, squatting, bending, standing, walking[,]
and stair climbing.” Regarding Raper’s ability to perform house-
hold chores, the ALJ noted that Raper “did not endorse any activi-
ties inconsistent with sedentary level exertion.” The ALJ also rec-
ognized that Raper testified that he: (1) stopped umpiring because
he could not move around, (2) could only walk for thirty minutes
before his legs hurt, (3) used a cane after his second back surgery,
(4) could lift fifteen pounds, and (5) could not balance after a few
minutes. This is precisely the type of “other evidence” ALJs must
consider under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii).
16 As we have noted in an unpublished opinion, rejecting a claimant’s state-
ments only because they are not corroborated by the medical evidence “is a
very different circumstance from when the claimant’s statements are incon-
sistent with the medical or other evidence of record.” Yanes v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec.
Admin., No. 20-14233, 2021 WL 2982084, at *7 n.14 (11th Cir. July 15, 2021)
(per curiam). ALJs must evaluate a claimant’s statements “in relation to” the
available evidence and “consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the
evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claim-
ant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 31 of 34

-- 31 of 34 --

32 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
After detailing the medical evidence, the ALJ reiterated that:
the functional restrictions alleged by [Raper] are not
entirely consistent with the evidence, as they have
been found to be disproportionate to the clinical find-
ings. [Raper’s] subjective complaints have been ac-
cepted, as far as they were supported by the objective
evidence and by the record as a whole. His impair-
ments are limiting; however, not disabling. The rec-
ord simply does not support [Raper’s] allegations of
disability.
The ALJ found Raper’s complaints credible only to the ex-
tent that they adhered to his RFC determination that Raper could
perform sedentary work. And the ALJ’s reason for partially dis-
crediting Raper’s subjective complaints was the same as his reasons
for discounting the November 4, 2015, medical opinion: his com-
plaints were inconsistent with the medical record. Therefore, the
ALJ considered Raper’s subjective complaints with the record as a
whole and adequately explained his decision not to fully credit
Raper’s alleged limitations on his ability to work.17 See Dyer,
395 F.3d at 1212.
17 Raper also argues that we should apply the reasoning of our unpublished
opinion, Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 21-12116,
2022 WL 1531582 (11th Cir. May 16, 2022) (per curiam). There, we held that
the
ALJ’s general statement that [the claimant’s] testimony regard-
ing the extent of his pain and limitations was inconsistent with
the record failed to provide an explicit and adequate explana-
tion for discrediting this testimony. [And] the implication as
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 32 of 34

-- 32 of 34 --

22-11103 Opinion of the Court 33
to [the claimant’s] credibility was not obvious from the ALJ’s
opinion that merely summarized portions of the medical evi-
dence showing mild to moderate test results, which were not
necessarily inconsistent with [the claimant’s] descriptions of
his pain and limitations.
Id. at *2.
Raper’s argument is unavailing. Martinez is an unpublished case. “Our un-
published opinions are not precedential, so they do not bind us . . . to any de-
gree.” Patterson v. Ga. Pac., LLC, 38 F.4th 1336, 1346 (11th Cir. 2022). Even if
Martinez were precedential, Raper’s case is distinguishable in two ways. First,
as explained above, we disagree with Raper that the ALJ failed to provide an
explicit and adequate explanation for discrediting his testimony. Second, also
explained above, it was obvious which portions of Raper’s testimony the ALJ
found credible.
Moreover, in other unpublished decisions, we have found no error in sim-
ilar factual circumstances. See Sampson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 694 F. App’x 727,
740 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (holding that the ALJ’s explanation—that the
claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of
his symptoms “were not credible to the extent they were inconsistent with the
RFC”—“was more than just a ‘broad rejection’”); Brown v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
442 F. App’x 507, 513–14 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (holding that the ALJ
“considered [the claimant’s] subjective complaints [about the intensity and
limiting effects of her symptoms] in light of the record as a whole and ade-
quately explained his decision not to fully credit [the claimant’s] alleged limi-
tations on her ability to work”); Flowers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 441 F. App’x 735,
743–45 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (holding that the ALJ did not err when he
found the claimant’s testimony “credible only to the extent it was consistent
with his RFC determination” and “[t]he ALJ’s reasons for partially discrediting
[the claimant’s testimony] were the same as his reasons for discounting the
opinions of [the claimant’s] treating and examining doctors, namely that their
testimony was not supported by the medical record”).
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 33 of 34

-- 33 of 34 --

34 Opinion of the Court 22-11103
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s judgment affirm-
ing the SSA’s denial of Raper’s application for disability insurance
benefits.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-11103 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 01/03/2024 Page: 34 of 34

-- 34 of 34 --