Johnny Brett Gregory v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-14103
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JOHNNY BRETT GREGORY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 4:21-cv-00060-WEJ
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 1 of 22

-- 1 of 22 --

2 Opinion of the Court 21-14103
Before N EWSOM , BRANCH, and G RANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Brett Gregory, proceeding
pro se on appeal, appeals
a magistrate judge’s order affirming the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration’s (“Commissioner”) denial of his
application for supplemental security income (“SSI”). He argues
that substantial evidence did not support (1) the administrative law
judge’s (“ALJ”) finding that he did not meet or equal Listing 12.15
for Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders and (2) the ALJ’s
determination of his residual functional capacity (“RFC”).1 For the
following reasons, we affirm.
I. Background
In November 2019, Gregory applied for SSI, under Title XVI
of the Social Security Act, alleging that his disability, post-traumatic
stress disorder (“PTSD”), began on July 19, 2019. His initial
application was denied. He sought reconsideration, again claiming
PTSD as his disability but adding “anxiety” and “emotional feelings
of stress and debilitating depression.” This renewed request was
also denied. Then, Gregory requested a hearing and appeared
1 Gregory has also moved to reassign this case to a different judge on remand.
Because we conclude, however, that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s
findings and affirm, we need not decide this matter. Accordingly, we DENY
Gregory’s motion.
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 2 of 22

-- 2 of 22 --

21-14103 Opinion of the Court 3
before an ALJ in October 2020. The ALJ admitted Gregory’s
medical records, which included the following.
A. Medical Records
In a mental status exam in January 2011, Dr. William Corey
of the Jesup Federal Correctional Institution, where Gregory was
imprisoned at the time, noted the following. Gregory was alert
with an appropriate manner and a cooperative attitude. His affect
showed a normal range, with normal intensity and stability. He
was oriented by person, place, time, and purpose for the interview,
his concentration and attention were within normal limits, and he
showed “no indications of delusional mood or ideas.” Dr. Corey
concluded that Gregory was “functioning at a high level” and
experiencing only “situational stress,” so there was no need for a
follow-up.
In April 2019, Gregory was examined by Dr. Jessica Malmad.
Dr. Malmad noted that Gregory’s “only medical problem [was]
migraines” for which medication “ha[d] been very helpful.”
Gregory also reported that he had trouble sleeping sometimes
because he was “so pumped up and excited to be out of prison.”
Gregory had no physical abnormalities, answered questions
appropriately, was alert and coherent, and had a normal mood and
affect. Dr. Malmad noted that other than those issues (the
migraines and trouble sleeping), Gregory “ha[d] no other specific
complaints at [that] time.
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 3 of 22

-- 3 of 22 --

4 Opinion of the Court 21-14103
In July 2019, Gregory was seen by licensed professional
counselor Jill Locklear. Locklear conducted a mental status
evaluation of Gregory, which indicated the following. Gregory
was alert and cooperative; he was oriented to person, time,
situation, and place; his appearance was kempt; his mood was
euthymic; his speech was normal; his affect was full; his thought
content was unremarkable; he had no hallucinations; his thought
processes were logical; his memory was intact; and his insight and
judgment were fair.
However, Locklear noted that Gregory reported “feeling
nervous, trauma reactions, worry/anxiety, not sleeping, paranoia,
and feeling unsafe.” She also noted that he reported difficulty
paying attention once or twice a week, feeling easily startled and
anxious daily, and experiencing nightmares or flashbacks once or
twice a week. Ultimately, Locklear concluded that Gregory
“present[ed] with symptoms from incarceration that indicated
PTSD.” However, Locklear noted that, although Gregory stated
he was guarded with people, he was not guarded with her and that
he was “pleasant and motivated to improve his quality of life and
be happy.”
In September 2019, Gregory was examined by Dr. Keith
Wood, whose procedure notes indicated the following. Gregory
was generally open and cooperative but became closed and
guarded when speaking about his imprisonment. He was alert and
oriented; he had clear speech with a normal rate and tone; he had
an anxious affect and an anxious and depressed mood; he had tight
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 4 of 22

-- 4 of 22 --

21-14103 Opinion of the Court 5
associations, linear thinking, and avoidant thoughts; he was not
hallucinating, but he was having re-experiences, “more so when
not being busy;” his attention and memory were within normal
limits; and he saw himself as adjusting to being out of prison. After
the fifteen-minute examination, Dr. Wood diagnosed Gregory as
having PTSD and depression. Dr. Wood planned to refer Gregory
for individual therapy.
Later that month, Gregory was examined by physician’s
assistant Britnay Ferguson, whose procedure notes indicated the
following. Gregory reported that he was working for a mobile
pressure washing company seven days a week, for approximately
sixty-six hours weekly. Gregory stated that he slept in between
tasks and rarely slept at home, which he attributed to not feeling
comfortable sleeping when alone. He reported having “great”
energy since his release from prison and denied irritability.
Ferguson’s mental evaluation indicated that Gregory’s appearance
was groomed; his behavior was normal and pleasant; his speech
was normal; his mood and affect were euthymic and full; his
associations were tight; his thought processes were future-
oriented, linear, goal-directed, and well-organized; and he did not
have any apparent hallucinations, paranoia, delusions, or
obsessions. Additionally, his judgment and memory were intact;
he was oriented to person, place, time, and situation; and his
attention and concentration were within normal limits. Ferguson
prescribed Zoloft.
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 5 of 22

-- 5 of 22 --

6 Opinion of the Court 21-14103
In November 2019, Ferguson again examined Gregory.
Gregory reported that he was fired from his job the previous week
because of multiple required meetings with his parole officer. His
mental status evaluation was the same as the September
examination.
Gregory’s mother completed a function report in
November 2019 that indicated Gregory’s disability had the
following negative effects. He was not alert to danger and had
intense emotional and physical reactions. He could not “socially
communicate” and had difficulty sleeping. He was not good at
following instructions, and he had a short attention span. Although
he could count change, Gregory could not pay bills, handle a
savings account, or use a checkbook. However, Gregory had no
issues with personal care, and he read every day.
Gregory also completed his own function report in
December 2019, in which he self-reported the following. He did
not communicate well with others. He was irritable, tended to be
easily startled, and unable to control his emotions and outbursts.
He did not engage in social activities, did not get along with
authority figures, and had paranoia and anxiety around people.
However, he simultaneously indicated that he had no problems
getting along with family, friends, neighbors, or others. He was
also able to take care of his son, go to the grocery store, do laundry,
prepare soups, drive, and shop in store and by phone. He was
taking medication for drowsiness, dizziness, migraines, and
headaches.
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 6 of 22

-- 6 of 22 --

21-14103 Opinion of the Court 7
In February 2020, Gregory was seen by licensed professional
counselor Jacyln Hallums, whose procedure notes indicated the
following. Gregory reported difficulty sleeping, poor appetite,
difficulty concentrating, racing thoughts, feelings of paranoia, and
excessive worrying that he was hearing sounds at night. He stated
that he was having nightmares and flashbacks almost nightly.
However, Gregory’s mental evaluation was nearly identical to his
most recent one from November 2019, aside from his mood, which
was calm. Gregory also reported that he felt “a little bit more
balanced since starting treatment.”
Gregory was again seen by Ferguson in March 2020, and her
procedure notes indicated the following. Ferguson did not increase
Gregory’s Zoloft dosage because he was “[f]eeling good on 50mg,”
which he attributed to therapy and having more time to adjust
being out of prison. He denied having any “bothersome” side
effects of PTSD, stating, “I think what has really happened is I[
have] gotten good at patience.” Gregory provided an example of
successfully navigating a stressful encounter, and he indicated he
was interested in tapering off of Zoloft within a year of when he
started taking it. He was negative for agitation, behavioral
problems, confusion, decreased concentration, dysphoric mood,
hallucinations, self-injury, sleep disturbance, and suicidal ideas.
Gregory was not nervous, anxious, or hyperactive. His mental
status evaluation was nearly identical to his most recent one from
February 2020, aside from his mood, which was euthymic.
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 7 of 22

-- 7 of 22 --

8 Opinion of the Court 21-14103
Gregory was evaluated by nurse practitioner Caletha Carter
in August 2020, and her procedure notes indicated the following.2
Gregory reported increased depression and anxiety because of the
pandemic, stated that he had not been sleeping well due to
nightmares and flashbacks of his prison-related trauma, and
indicated that he was stressed about his upcoming ALJ hearing. His
mental status evaluation was nearly identical to his most recent one
from March 2020, aside from his mood, which was dysphoric.
Carter increased Gregory’s Zoloft dosage to 100 milligrams and
prescribed him Prazosin for his nightmares and flashbacks.
B. Agency Proceedings
In January 2020, an examiner issued the initial Disability
Determination Explanation (“DDE”), which concluded that
Gregory was not disabled. The examiner reasoned that Gregory’s
claimed PTSD did not meet the B or C criteria for the “12.15
Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders” listing.3 The DDE also
2 Gregory was evaluated virtually due to COVID-19 restrictions.
3 Listing 12.15 is the listing for Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders.
See
20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. As outlined below, in order to satisfy the
severity requirement of Listing 12.15, claimants must be able to show that
their medically determinable impairment satisfies either the paragraph B or
paragraph C criteria.
See id.
Under paragraph B, Listing 12.15 may be met by showing one extreme
or two marked limitations in the following areas of functioning:
(1) understanding, remembering, or applying information; (2) interacting with
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 8 of 22

-- 8 of 22 --

21-14103 Opinion of the Court 9
noted that Gregory was able to complete familiar tasks, sustain
concentration for the completion of important tasks, and relate
adequately in an appropriate manner. Thus, the examiner
concluded that Gregory’s impairment was not severe and did “not
significantly limit [Gregory’s] physical or mental ability to do basic
work activities.”
In May 2020, an examiner issued the reconsidered DDE at
Gregory’s request, which again concluded that Gregory was not
disabled.
At the ALJ hearing in October 2020, Gregory’s counsel4
argued that Gregory lacked the basic mental ability to maintain
unskilled work, that he had difficulty integrating with others, and
that he “should be deemed less than sedentary.”5
others; (3) concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and (4) adapting or
managing oneself.
Id.
Under paragraph C, Listing 12.15 may be met by showing that the
impairment is “serious and persistent,” has lasted for over two years, and that
both: (1) medical treatment, therapy, support, or a highly structured setting
diminished the symptoms and signs of the disorder; and (2) the claimant has
the minimal capacity to adapt to changes in his environment or to demands
that are not already part of his daily life.
Id.
4 While Gregory was
pro se when submitting his initial application and is
pro
se on appeal, he was represented during his ALJ hearing.
5 A claimant’s RFC to perform work is determined to be at one of the
following “various functional levels”: “sedentary, light, medium, heavy, [or]
very heavy.” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2. This RFC is taken into
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 9 of 22

-- 9 of 22 --

10 Opinion of the Court 21-14103
Gregory then testified as follows. He did not get along well
with others. He had headaches “every other day, for two or three
days,” as well as bad mood swings. He was “never aware” and was
“always in paranoia.” Panic attacks and nightmares prevented him
from sleeping well. The combination of his migraine and mental
health issues interfered with his ability to go to work because they
affected his sleep and ability to report to work. Ultimately, for
these reasons, he asserted that he could not handle a 40-hour
workweek.
However, a vocational expert testified that Gregory could
still perform his past work as a dump truck driver or pressure
washer. The vocational expert also testified that several unskilled
jobs existed in the national economy in significant numbers for a
hypothetical person with Gregory’s limitations.6
Following the hearing, the ALJ found that Gregory was not
disabled and made the following findings. Gregory had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity since his application date.
He had the following severe impairments: headaches, PTSD, and
account in an ALJ’s determination into a claimant’s “ability to engage in
substantial gainful activity.”
Id.
6 Specifically, the vocational expert testified that:
At the medium unskilled occupational base . . . there’s the
position of a cleaner . . . . At light, there’s the position of a
sorter . . . . And sedentary, there’s the position of a document
preparer . . . .
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 10 of 22

-- 10 of 22 --

21-14103 Opinion of the Court 11
“affective and/or anxiety disorders.” However, Gregory did not
have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments—
specifically, the severity of his impairments did not meet or
medically equal the Listing 12.15 criteria for two reasons. First, the
ALJ held that Gregory’s impairments did not satisfy the B criteria
because (1) Gregory only had a mild limitation in understanding,
remembering, or applying information; (2) he only had a moderate
limitation in interacting with others; (3) he only had a mild
limitation in concentrating, persisting, or maintain pace; and (4) he
only had a mild limitation in adapting or managing himself.
Second, the ALJ held that the evidence failed to satisfy the C criteria
because there was “no evidence of both years of medical treatment,
mental health therapy, psychosocial support(s), or a highly
structured setting(s) that [was] ongoing and that diminishe[d] the
symptoms and signs of [Gregory’s] mental disorder; and marginal
adjustment, where [Gregory] showed minimal capacity to adapt to
changes in the environment or to demands” that were not already
a part of his life.
The ALJ further determined that Gregory had the RFC to
perform medium work where he “lifts or carries 50 pounds
occasionally and 25 pounds frequently, stands or walks for six of
eight hours during the workday, and sits for six of eight hours
during the workday. [Gregory] can have no public contact work,
and no more than occasionally contact with supervisors and/or co-
employees.”
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 11 of 22

-- 11 of 22 --

12 Opinion of the Court 21-14103
In assessing his RFC, the ALJ acknowledged Gregory’s
testimony that he had frequent headaches but noted that there was
no evidence of any hospitalization for migraines and that, in April
2019, he was assessed with a chronic migraine, but that testing did
not show any physical abnormalities.
The ALJ then elaborated on the B criteria as they related to
the mental component of Gregory’s RFC. First, the ALJ stated that
Gregory had only mild limitations in understanding, remembering,
or applying information because he understood and responded
appropriately during the hearing; he stated in his function report
that he drove, shopped in stores and by phone and had the ability
to count change; he presented as coherent in April 2019; he showed
intact memory in September 2019, and he had an intact memory in
November 2019. Second, the ALJ determined that Gregory had
moderate limitations in interacting with others because, although
he testified to paranoia and a constant irate mood and foul moods
around people and denied social activities in his function report, he
also indicated in his function report that he had no problems
getting along with family, friends, neighbors, or others; he had a
normal mood and affect in April 2019; he had a euthymic mood,
cooperative behavior, and full affect in July 2019; he began therapy
for difficulty handling groups and dealing with past trauma in
September 2019; he was generally open and cooperative aside from
discussing his imprisonment; he reported great energy and showed
a euthymic mood with full affect in another September 2019
treatment session; he showed a euthymic mood in November 2019
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 12 of 22

-- 12 of 22 --

21-14103 Opinion of the Court 13
despite having been fired from his job; he was cooperative in
February 2020; he had a euthymic mood and full affect in March
2020; and he had a full range of mood and affect in August 2020.
Third, the ALJ concluded that Gregory had mild limitations in his
ability to concentrate, persist, or maintain pace because he was able
to concentrate and follow along with the hearing; he was alert and
oriented in April 2019; he was oriented in July 2019; he had normal
attention and concentration in September 2019; he was oriented
and had normal attention and concentration in November 2019
and March 2020; and he was oriented in August 2020. Fourth, the
ALJ stated that Gregory had mild limitations in his ability to adapt
and manage himself because he reported preparing soups, doing
laundry, driving, and shopping in his function report and had
shown considerable abilities in obtaining employment after a long
incarceration.
Next, the ALJ found that Gregory’s impairments could
reasonably be expected to cause his symptoms, but concluded that
his statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting
effects of those symptoms were not entirely consistent with the
record evidence. The ALJ reasoned that he had an inconsistent
work history prior to his onset date, so factors other than severe
impairments, including his incarceration history, may have
prevented him from working. The ALJ further stated that he
worked and earned close to the threshold for substantial gainful
activity in 2019 and that he stated that he was fired from his last job
due to required meetings with his parole officer and did not quit
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 13 of 22

-- 13 of 22 --

14 Opinion of the Court 21-14103
because of his impairments. The ALJ noted again that there was
no evidence of hospitalizations for migraines and that, importantly,
Gregory’s mental status examinations generally showed normal
attention, full orientation, and normal moods. The ALJ added that
Gregory was able to perform daily life activities.
Gregory requested a review of the ALJ’s decision, which the
Appeals Council denied.
C. District Court Proceedings
Proceeding
pro se, Gregory filed an amended complaint in
the district court requesting review of the ALJ’s denial of SSI.
Gregory submitted a brief in support of his complaint where he
appeared to argue that substantial evidence did not support the
ALJ’s finding that his PTSD did not satisfy the criteria for Listing
12.15 and that the ALJ failed to properly weigh or credit (1) Dr.
Corey’s assessment; (2) Locklear’s procedure notes; (3) Dr.
Malmad’s “medical opinion;” (4) Ferguson’s procedure notes; (5)
Dr. Wood’s “opinion” that Gregory had PTSD; and (6) Gregory’s
symptom testimony.
The magistrate judge affirmed the ALJ’s decision.7 First, the
magistrate judge reasoned that substantial evidence supported the
ALJ’s findings that Gregory did not meet the B or C criteria of
Listing 12.15. Second, the magistrate judge stated that, although
the ALJ credited the various diagnoses set forth in the treatment
7 The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction.
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 14 of 22

-- 14 of 22 --

21-14103 Opinion of the Court 15
notes, the records from Gregory’s medical providers did little more
than document his conditions and did not indicate what he could
or could not do despite his impairments and symptoms. Third, the
magistrate judge concluded that the ALJ properly discredited
Gregory’s claim of disabling migraines and mental health
symptoms based on objective medical evidence and Gregory’s
testimony regarding his daily activities and properly partially
credited his assertion that he could not interact with others.
Gregory timely appealed.
II. Discussion
When an ALJ denies benefits and the Appeals Council denies
review, we review the ALJ’s decision as the Commissioner’s final
decision.
Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001).
We review the legal principles underpinning the decision
de novo,
but “we review the resulting decision only to determine whether it
is supported by substantial evidence.”
Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d
1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005).
Under the substantial evidence standard, we look to the
existing administrative record and ask whether it contains sufficient
evidence to support the ALJ’s factual determinations.
Biestek v.
Berryhill, 139 S. Ct 1148, 1154 (2019). Substantial evidence is “more
than a mere scintilla” and means “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.”
Id. (quotations omitted).
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 15 of 22

-- 15 of 22 --

16 Opinion of the Court 21-14103
Importantly, “[w]e may not decide the facts anew, reweigh
the evidence or substitute our judgment” for that of the ALJ.
Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1186 (11th Cir.
2001). Rather, so long as it is supported by substantial evidence,
we defer to the ALJ’s decision even if the evidence may
preponderate against it.
Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d
1155, 1158–59 (11th Cir. 2004).
On appeal, Gregory presents two claims as to why the denial
of SSI was improper. First, Gregory argues that there was not
substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that he did not
meet or equal Listing 12.15. Second, he appears to argue that there
was not substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s RFC
determination.8
A. Whether substantial evidence supported the
ALJ’s finding that Gregory did not meet or equal
Listing 12.15
A disability is an “inability to engage in any substantial
gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical
or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or
8 In his reply brief, Gregory appears to contend, for the first time on appeal,
that the ALJ placed too much weight on his ability to perform daily activities
in determining whether he was disabled. Because he raises this argument for
the first time in his reply brief, we do not consider it.
See Lovett v. Ray, 327
F.3d 1181, 1183 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Because [appellant] raises [his] argument for
the first time in his reply brief, it is not properly before us.”).
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 16 of 22

-- 16 of 22 --

21-14103 Opinion of the Court 17
which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period
of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The mere
diagnosis of a medical impairment is insufficient to establish a
disability, as it does not reveal the extent to which the impairment
limits the claimant’s ability to work.
Moore, 405 F.3d at 1213 n.6.
The ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence in its decision.
See Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005).
The social security regulations outline a five-step process for
disability determinations: (1) whether claimant is engaged in
substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether claimant has a severe
impairment or combination of impairments; (3) if so, whether that
impairment, or combination of impairments, meets or equals the
medical listings; (4) if not, whether claimant can perform his past
relevant work in light of his RFC; and (5) if not, whether, based on
his age, education, and work experience, claimant can perform
other work available in the national economy.
Winschel, 631 F.3d
at 1178.
The listings of impairments, as relevant to step three,
describe “impairments that [the agency] consider[s] to be severe
enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity,
regardless of his or her age, education, or work experience.” 20
C.F.R. § 404.1525(a). A claimant bears the burden of showing his
impairments meet a listing.
See Barron v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 227,
229 (11th Cir. 1991).
The severity requirement for Listing 12.15—the listing for
Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorders—may be met by satisfying
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 17 of 22

-- 17 of 22 --

18 Opinion of the Court 21-14103
the criteria under either paragraph B or paragraph C.
See 20 C.F.R.
Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. Under paragraph B, Listing 12.15 may be
met by showing one extreme or two marked limitations in the
following areas of functioning: (1) understanding, remembering,
or applying information; (2) interacting with others;
(3) concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and (4) adapting
or managing oneself.
Id.
Under paragraph C, Listing 12.15 may be met by showing
that the impairment is “serious and persistent,” has lasted for over
two years, and that both: (1) medical treatment, therapy, support,
or a highly structured setting diminished the symptoms and signs
of the disorder; and (2) the claimant has the minimal capacity to
adapt to changes in his environment or to demands that are not
already part of his daily life.
Id.
A mild limitation means that the claimant’s “functioning in
this area independently, appropriately, effectively, and on a
sustained basis is slightly limited.”
Id. § 12.00(F)(2)(b). A moderate
limitation means that the claimant’s “functioning in this area
independently, appropriately, effectively, and on a sustained basis
is fair.”
Id. § 12.00(F)(2)(c). A marked limitation means that the
claimant’s functioning as described above is “seriously limited,”
while an extreme limitation is when the claimant is “not able to
function.”
Id. § 12.00(F)(2)(d), (e).
Here, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that
Gregory did not satisfy the B or C criteria of Listing 12.15. As to
the first B criterion, Gregory’s mental status evaluations
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 18 of 22

-- 18 of 22 --

21-14103 Opinion of the Court 19
consistently indicated that Gregory’s limitations in understanding,
remembering, or applying information were mild, if not arguably
non-existent.
Second, the evidence indicated that Gregory’s limitations in
interacting with others were moderate. Although he testified that
he did not get along well with others, had bad mood swings, and
got easily frustrated and angry, his providers frequently noted his
normal mood, affect, and cooperative behavior. Gregory also
indicated in his function report that he did not have any problems
getting along with family, friends, neighbors, or others.
Third, Gregory’s mental status evaluations consistently
indicated that his limitations in concentrating, persisting, or
maintaining pace were mild, if not arguably nonexistent.
Fourth, the evidence indicated that Gregory’s limitations in
adapting or managing himself were mild, if not arguably
nonexistent. In his function report, he stated that he prepared
soups, did laundry, drove, took care of his son, and went shopping.
Further, he worked as a pressure washer for 66 hours a week for a
period of time and was only fired due to the competing demands
of his parole meetings.
Further, the evidence also supported the ALJ’s finding that
Gregory did not satisfy the C criteria of Listing 12.15. At the time
of his ALJ diagnosis, he had only received his PTSD diagnosis a
little more than a year prior—clearly less time than the two-year
window required to satisfy the first C criterion. More importantly,
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 19 of 22

-- 19 of 22 --

20 Opinion of the Court 21-14103
the evidence indicated that Gregory had the ability to adapt to
environmental changes and new demands, as his mental status
evaluation following the loss of his job was the same as his prior
evaluation. In fact, Gregory used his job loss as an opportunity to
pursue therapy, which he had been unable to do previously
because of his job’s demanding hours.
B. Whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s
RFC determination
At steps four and five of the sequential process, the ALJ must
determine whether the claimant has the RFC to perform his past
relevant work and, if not, any other work. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv)-(v). RFC is an assessment of a claimant’s ability
to do work despite his impairments.
Id. § 404.1545(a)(1). In
formulating an RFC, the ALJ considers a claimant’s “ability to meet
the physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements of work.”
Id.
§ 404.1545(a)(4). The ALJ examines all relevant medical and other
evidence,9 including “any statements about what [the claimant]
can still do that have been provided by medical sources” and
9 A medical opinion is a statement from a medical source about what a
claimant can still do despite his impairments and whether the claimant has one
or more impairment-related limitations or restrictions in, among other
abilities, the ability to perform mental demands of work activities, such as
understanding, remembering, maintaining concentration, persistence, or
pace; carrying out instructions; or responding appropriately to supervision, co-
workers, or work pressures in a work setting. 20 C.F.R. § 416.913(a)(2).
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 20 of 22

-- 20 of 22 --

21-14103 Opinion of the Court 21
“descriptions and observations” by the claimant and others of his
limitations.
Id. § 404.1545(a)(3).
To the extent Gregory argues to the contrary in his initial
brief, we hold that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s RFC
determination that Gregory had the RFC to perform medium
work. The ALJ acknowledged that Gregory had frequent
headaches and migraines but correctly noted that the record did
not contain any evidence of hospitalization for migraines. The ALJ
also acknowledged that Gregory’s mental status examinations
generally showed that he had normal attention, full orientation,
and normal moods and was able to perform the full activities of
daily living. Further, the ALJ pointed to Gregory’s work history,
where he was employed in gainful activity and was not fired and
did not quit due to an inability to work, only for conflicts with his
required parole meetings.
The ALJ was correct—Gregory’s medical examinations,
combined with his work history and his own testimony about his
ability to perform daily life activities—contradicted his statements
concerning the limiting effects of his impairments and, as such, the
RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence.
III. Conclusion
Because substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding
that Gregory’s PTSD did not meet or equal the requirements of
Listing 12.15, and because substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s
RFC determination, we affirm.
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 21 of 22

-- 21 of 22 --

22 Opinion of the Court 21-14103
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 21-14103 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023 Page: 22 of 22

-- 22 of 22 --