Charolette A. Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11554
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cv-00730-CEH-AEP
CHAROLETTE A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 27, 2017)
Before MARCUS, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-11554 Date Filed: 02/27/2017 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Charolette A. Williams filed an application for disability insurance benefits
with the Commissioner of Social Security; an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
denied the application; and the district court affirmed the ALJ’s denial. Williams,
proceeding pro se, now appeals the district court’s decision. She argues that (1)
the ALJ erred in rejecting the medical opinion of her treating physician, Dr. Ashraf
Hanna, and (2) the district court should have remanded her case to the ALJ because
new evidence—a 2014 letter from Dr. Hanna—supports her application.1 After
careful consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
I
We review the ALJ’s decision for substantial evidence. See Moore v.
Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). “Absent good cause,
an ALJ is to give the medical opinions of treating physicians substantial or
considerable weight.” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179
(11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Good cause exists if the
evidence does not bolster the treating physician’s opinion, the evidence supports a
conclusion at odds with the opinion, or the opinion is “conclusory or inconsistent
with the [physician]’s own medical records.” See id. (internal quotation marks
omitted); Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 2004) (affirming an
1 In her initial brief, Williams also challenged the district court’s decision to assign her
case to a magistrate judge. However, she conceded this argument in her reply brief, recognizing
that the argument lacks merit.
Case: 16-11554 Date Filed: 02/27/2017 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
ALJ’s decision to afford little weight to the opinion of a treating physician
because, among other things, the opinion conflicted with the physician’s treatment
notes).
Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Hanna’s opinion;
the ALJ had good cause for the rejection. The ALJ concluded that Dr. Hanna’s
opinion was conclusory, inconsistent with Dr. Hanna’s own treatment notes, and at
odds with the evidence. Dr. Hanna asserted that Williams cannot sit in a working
position at a desk for more than an hour a day, cannot ambulate for more than an
hour a day, and requires at least two hours of resting time during an eight-hour
work day. But as the ALJ’s decision points out, Dr. Hanna did not explain the
basis for this opinion, and Dr. Hanna’s treatment notes for Williams indicate that
she both exhibits motor strength in her lower extremity and has normal gait and
station. Moreover, several other physicians opined about the effects of Williams’s
impairments, and none suggested that Williams has the limitations that Dr. Hanna
identified.
II
Williams has waived her claim for remand based on Dr. Hanna’s 2014 letter
because she did not raise the claim in district court. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw.
Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[A]n issue not raised in the
district court and raised for the first time in an appeal will not be considered by this
Case: 16-11554 Date Filed: 02/27/2017 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
court.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Williams asked the district court to
consider the letter, which Dr. Hanna drafted after Williams’s ALJ proceedings, but
Williams did not request remand based on the letter. See Williams v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., No. 14-00730, slip op. at 10 n.1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2016) (“[A]
claimant may petition for a remand for the Commissioner to take additional
evidence . . . . However, [Williams] has not petitioned this [c]ourt for such
relief.”).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 16-11554 Date Filed: 02/27/2017 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --