Jeffrey May v. Commissioner of Social Security

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11633
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JEFFREY MAY,
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. 8:21-cv-02481-JRK
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11633 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11633
Before J ORDAN, ROSENBAUM , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey David May challenges the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration’s (“Commissioner”) denial of his
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) application. May argues that
the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred by failing to consider the
limitations his migraine headaches caused. He asks us to reverse
this case and remand it with directions for the ALJ to conduct a
new hearing and give appropriate weight to the Veteran Affairs
(“VA”) medical consultant’s opinion about the migraine
headaches. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the
district court.
I
When we review a decision by the Commissioner, we ask
whether substantial evidence supports the factual findings and
whether the correct legal standards were applied. 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g); Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th
Cir. 2004) (per curiam). And we review de novo whether the ALJ
applied the proper legal standards. Washington v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 906 F.3d 1353, 1358 (11th Cir. 2018).
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158 (citation omitted). It
requires more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance of the
evidence. Id. While we must review the record as a whole, we
USCA11 Case: 23-11633 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

23-11633 Opinion of the Court 3
may not decide facts anew, re-weigh evidence, make credibility
determinations, or substitute our judgment for that of the
Commissioner. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211, 1213 (11th
Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
The ALJ must develop a full and fair record. Welch v. Bowen,
854 F.2d 436, 440 (11th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). Doing so ensures
the ALJ has “scrupulously and conscientiously probe[d] into,
inquire[d] of, and explore[d] for all the relevant facts,” while also
enabling us on appeal “to determine whether the ultimate decision
on the merits is rational and supported by substantial evidence.”
Id. (citations omitted). But even so, the ALJ need not discuss every
piece of evidence in his decision. See Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206,
1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
“An individual claiming Social Security disability benefits
must prove that she is disabled.” Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211. The
Social Security regulations establish a five-step process for an ALJ
to determine whether a claimant is disabled. The ALJ considers (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 meets or
equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of
Impairments; (4) based on a residual-functional-capacity
assessment, whether the claimant can perform any of his past
relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether significant
numbers of jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant
can perform given the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age,
USCA11 Case: 23-11633 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-11633
education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v).
If the ALJ determines that the claimant is not disabled at any step
of the evaluation process, the inquiry ends. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4).
II
Here, the ALJ found at step four that May was not disabled
because he was capable of performing past relevant work. The ALJ
alternatively found at step five that May was not disabled because
he was capable of performing work that existed in significant
numbers nationally.
May appeals the district court’s affirmance of those findings.
He argues that the ALJ failed to give “great weight” to the opinion
of the VA’s medical consultant about May’s migraine headaches.
Even though the ALJ mentioned May’s headaches and the VA
medical consultant’s opinion about them, May posits that the ALJ
failed to specifically acknowledge the consultant’s opinions on the
frequency and intensity of the headaches. He cites Noble v.
Commissioner of Social Security, 963 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2020), for
the principle the ALJ must explicitly address in his decision opinion
evidence from a VA medical consultant that underlies a percentage
rating assignment, and the ALJ must give express reasons if he
rejects that opinion.
For claims filed before March 27, 2017, Noble requires this
Court to ask the following: (1) “whether the ALJ’s decision shows
that she considered [the VA’s] decision” on the claimant’s disability
status, and if so, (2) “whether substantial evidence in the record
USCA11 Case: 23-11633 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

23-11633 Opinion of the Court 5
supports the ALJ’s decision to depart from the other agency’s
decision.” Id. at 1330.
We conclude, after review of the record, that the ALJ
applied the proper legal standards and substantial evidence
supported his decision. First, the ALJ considered the VA medical
consultant’s opinion that May’s migraine headaches impacted his
ability to work. In fact, he described the consultant’s opinion in the
ALJ decision. Plus, the ALJ specifically found that “migraine
headaches” were one of May’s severe impairments, and he
considered other evidence of headaches throughout the decision.
Second, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision
that May had the capacity to perform one of his past jobs or other
jobs in the national economy, even with the evidence of migraine
headaches. For example, the ALJ relied on evidence that May was
able to live independently, perform chores, drive, handle finances,
work out, and care for his house and dogs. And while the ALJ
considered evidence that May suffered from migraine headaches,
he also relied on evidence that the headaches had no impact on
May’s ability to work.
We may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our
judgment for the Commissioner’s on appeal. So long as substantial
evidence supports the decision, we may not overturn the decision
of the Commissioner. Here, that is the case. Accordingly, we
affirm the decision of the district court upholding the decision of
the Commissioner.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-11633 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2024 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --