Case: 18-12160 Date Filed: 04/22/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-12160
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:17-cv-01073-TBS
YAMIRA ANNE DOUGLAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 22, 2019)
Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-12160 Date Filed: 04/22/2019 Page: 2 of 4
Yamira Anne Munar Douglas appeals from the affirmance of the decision of
the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”)
denying her a period of disability and disability insurance and supplemental
security income. She argues that the Appeals Council improperly denied her
request for review of the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) decision when she
submitted new and material evidence and there was a reasonable probability that
the new evidence would change the ALJ’s decision.
In Social Security appeals, we “review the Commissioner’s decision with
deference to the factual findings and close scrutiny of the legal conclusions.”
Ingram v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin.,
496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007)
(quotation marks and alterations omitted). The decision of the Appeals Council is
a part of the Commissioner’s “final decision” for the purposes of judicial review.
Id. at 1264. We consider whether the Commissioner’s factual findings are
supported by substantial evidence and review the Commissioner’s legal
conclusions de novo.
Id. at 1260. “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla
and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Crawford v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec.,
363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th
Cir. 2004).
A claimant is generally permitted to present new evidence at each stage of
the administrative process. Ingram,
496 F.3d at 1261. “The Appeals Council must
2
Case: 18-12160 Date Filed: 04/22/2019 Page: 3 of 4
consider new, material, and chronologically relevant evidence and must review the
case if the [ALJ’s] action, findings, or conclusion is contrary to the weight of the
evidence currently of record.”
Id. (quotation marks omitted). When denying a
request for review, the Appeals Council is not required to provide a detailed
discussion of the new evidence or an explanation as to why the claimant’s new
evidence would not change the ALJ’s decision. Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec.
Admin.,
771 F.3d 780, 784-85 (11th Cir. 2014). “[W]hen a claimant properly
presents new evidence to the Appeals Council, a reviewing court must consider
whether that new evidence renders the denial of benefits erroneous.” Ingram,
496
F.3d at 1262. “It is well-established that the testimony of a treating physician must
be given substantial or considerable weight unless good cause is shown to the
contrary.” Crawford,
363 F.3d at 1159 (quotation marks omitted) (noting that the
treating physician’s opinion was inconsistent with his own treatment notes and
unsupported by the medical evidence).
Here, the Appeals Council properly considered the additional evidence
submitted by Douglas but found that the additional evidence did not provide a
basis for changing the ALJ’s decision. Ingram,
496 F.3d at 1260. The Appeals
Council was not required to provide any further explanation. Mitchell, 771 F.3d at
784-85. A review of the record indicates that the Commissioner’s factual findings
were supported by substantial evidence, and the additional evidence submitted to
3
Case: 18-12160 Date Filed: 04/22/2019 Page: 4 of 4
the Appeals Council was inconsistent with previous evidence in the record, such
that the additional evidence did not render the denial of benefits erroneous. See
Ingram,
496 F.3d at 1260, 1262, 1264; Crawford,
363 F.3d at 1159. Accordingly,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4
