[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 21, 2006
No. 06-13663 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-02013-CV-J-W
DANA B. QUARLES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
Commissioner, Social Security Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(November 21, 2006)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dana B. Quarles appeals the order of the district court that affirmed the
denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income. Quarles argues that the administrative law judge failed to give
proper weight to the opinion of Quarles’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Timothy Baltz
of the Indian Rivers Mental Health Center, and the district court did not “engage in
any meaningful examination” of Quarles’s argument. We affirm.
“‘We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine if it is supported by
substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.’” Crawford v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec.,
363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Lewis v. Callahan,
125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997)). Substantial evidence is “something more
than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance,” Dyer v. Barnhart,
395 F.3d
1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted), and “is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a
conclusion,” Crawford,
363 F.3d at 1158 (internal quotation marks omitted). We
review de novo the determination of the district court that the Commissioner’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence. Wilson v. Barnhart,
284 F.3d 1219,
1221 (11th Cir. 2002).
The opinion of a treating physician “‘must be given substantial or
considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary.’” Phillips v.
Barnhart,
357 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Lewis,
125 F.3d at 1440).
2
Good cause exists when (1) the opinion of the treating physician was not bolstered
by the evidence, (2) evidence supported a contrary finding, or (3) the opinion of
the treating physician was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own
medical records. Id. at 1240-41. The report of a treating physician also “may be
discounted when it is not accompanied by objective medical evidence.” Edwards
v. Sullivan,
937 F.2d 580, 583 (11th Cir. 1991). “When electing to disregard the
opinion of a treating physician, [an] ALJ must clearly articulate its reasons.”
Phillips,
357 F.3d at 1241.
The ALJ acknowledged the proper legal standard and articulated reasons for
deciding to give “little weight” to Dr. Baltz’s assessment and opinions, and that
decision is supported by substantial evidence. Dr. Baltz’s assessment and opinions
were not accompanied by objective medical evidence and are not bolstered by the
record. Dr. Baltz submitted two brief and conclusory letters and a short
questionnaire prepared by Quarles’s counsel. Dr. Baltz stated in a letter dated
January 2004 that Quarles did not have “any current problems with alcohol or
substance abuse,” but there was substantial evidence to the contrary. In March
2003, Dr. Baltz diagnosed Quarles with benzodiazepine and alcohol dependence,
and a similar diagnosis was made in April 2003. In July 2003, Quarles admitted
during a group therapy session at the Indian Rivers Mental Health Center that he
3
had a growing addiction to painkillers, and Quarles tested positive in October 2003
for benzodiazepines, barbiturates, opiates, and a high blood alcohol content. Dr.
Baltz also stated that Quarles had nausea from a drug called Celexa, but the
medical treatment records do not document any complaint by Quarles about
Celexa.
The order of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
4
