Case: 18-14226 Date Filed: 06/19/2019 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14226
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cv-00299-TMP
KATHERINE DUCKWORTH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, COMMISSIONER,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(June 19, 2019)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-14226 Date Filed: 06/19/2019 Page: 2 of 6
Katherine Duckworth appeals the denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Duckworth challenges the decision to discount the opinions of her consulting
psychologists, Dr. David Wilson and Dr. June Nichols, and of a licensed clinical
social worker, Kristy Phillips, and the finding that she was not intellectually
disabled under Listing 12.05 of the Code of Federal Regulations. We affirm.
Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s decision to give
little weight to Dr. Wilson’s opinion that Duckworth was mentally disabled. The
administrative law judge was entitled to discount an opinion that the doctor formed
after one examination, see
20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), (c)(3) (weighing the length
of the medical relationship and support for the medical opinion), and that
conflicted with his medical notes and with other evidence in the record, see
id.
§ 416.927(c)(6) (considering “other information in your case record”). Dr. Wilson
opined that Duckworth could not complete activities on schedule, be punctual, or
maintain socially acceptable behavior, personal neatness, or cleanliness, but the
doctor recorded that Duckworth drove herself to her evaluation, arrived on time,
was dressed appropriately, and displayed normal behavior during the examination.
And Dr. Nichols, social worker Phillips, treating Nurse Practitioner Philip Rogers,
and doctors in the emergency room at Gadsden Regional Medical Center recorded
that Duckworth acted and dressed appropriately, drove herself to and arrived
2
Case: 18-14226 Date Filed: 06/19/2019 Page: 3 of 6
timely for appointments, had appropriate mood and affect, and was oriented and
cooperative. Additionally, Duckworth and her husband stated in their function
reports that she interacted regularly with her stepdaughter, telephoned her children,
and shopped, all of which revealed, in the words of the administrative law judge, a
“capability of interacting with the general-public on an occasional basis.” Dr.
Wilson also opined that Duckworth could comprehend and complete only short
and simple instructions, concentrate for only two hours, and never report for work
in a 30-day period. But Duckworth and her husband reported that she daily
performed housework and babysat a 22-year-old stepdaughter she described as
“slow,” maintained the household finances, drove and shopped independently, and
cooked “good meals” that required as long as two hours to prepare.
Substantial evidence also supports the administrative law judge’s decision to
discount Dr. Nichols’s opinion that Duckworth had mental limitations that
prevented her from working. The opinion Dr. Nichols developed after one
consultative examination was not entitled to the substantial weight due the opinion
of a treating doctor. See id. § 404.1527(c)(2). Dr. Nichols’s opinion also conflicted
with her findings, Duckworth’s and her husband’s function reports, and evidence
in the record. See id. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(6). Dr. Nichols opined that
Duckworth could not withstand pressures of everyday work based on Duckworth’s
statement that she had two strokes on June 27, 2014, but her treatment records
3
Case: 18-14226 Date Filed: 06/19/2019 Page: 4 of 6
from the emergency room reported normal cardiovascular functions and normal
readings on a chest X-ray and an echocardiogram. Dr. Nichols opined that
Duckworth had cognitive deficits, but that opinion conflicted with the doctor’s
finding that Duckworth’s recent and remote functioning were grossly intact. Dr.
Nichols also opined that Duckworth could not manage her finances, but
Duckworth and her husband reported that she paid bills, managed a checkbook and
savings account, and handled money orders.
The administrative law judge’s decision to discount Phillips’s opinion also
was supported by substantial evidence. Because Phillips, a licensed clinical social
worker, is not considered an acceptable medical source under the regulations, see
id. §§ 404.1513(a), 416.913(a), her opinion could not establish the existence of an
impairment. See Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
363 F.3d 1155, 1160 (11th Cir.
2004). And Phillips’s opinion that Duckworth’s memory, ability to sustain a
schedule, and ability to accept instructions were severely impaired was inconsistent
with Phillips’s treatment notes. Phillips recorded that Duckworth’s depression and
related symptoms improved with medication; she ordinarily had normal speech,
affect, and appearance; she was cooperative; she was of average intelligence; she
had an intact memory and logical thought processes; and her thought content was
unremarkable. Phillips’s opinion also conflicted with Duckworth’s and her
husband’s reports about her regular activities.
4
Case: 18-14226 Date Filed: 06/19/2019 Page: 5 of 6
Substantial evidence also supports the finding of the administrative law
judge that Duckworth’s impairments did not meet the criteria of Listing 12.05. To
qualify as intellectually disabled, a claimant must satisfy three diagnostic criteria:
she must have “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning,” “deficits
in adaptive behavior,” and “manifested deficits in adaptive behavior before age
22.” Crayton v. Callahan,
120 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir. 1997). Duckworth
argues that the full-scale intelligence quotient score of 69 assigned by Dr. Wilson
created a rebuttable presumption that she manifested deficits in adaptive
functioning before age 22, see Hodges v. Barnhart,
276 F.3d 1265, 1269 (11th Cir.
2001), but Duckworth was not entitled to the presumption because her score was
“inconsistent with other evidence in the record [about her] daily activities and
behavior,” Lowery v. Sullivan,
979 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1992). The
administrative law judge was entitled to find that evidence of Duckworth’s
participation in special education classes during school was overshadowed by her
and her husband’s reports that she daily assisted her husband to get ready for work,
cared for her stepdaughter, cooked, cleaned house, and cared for pets; that she
managed her finances, paid household bills, drove, and shopped; and that she had
obtained a driver’s license and had worked as a cashier/checker and as a short
order cook. Duckworth argues that the district court used “a post hoc
rationalization for affirming the denial” of benefits, but we limit our review “to an
5
Case: 18-14226 Date Filed: 06/19/2019 Page: 6 of 6
inquiry into whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the
Commissioner,” Wilson v. Barnhart,
284 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002).
We AFFIRM the denial of Duckworth’s application for benefits.
6
