Philleatra Joyce Gaylor v. Commissioner of Social Security

USCA11 Case: 22-12153 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 03/15/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12153
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
PHILLEATRA JOYCE GAYLOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-02245-MHC
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12153 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 03/15/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12153
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and WILSON and LUCK, Cir-
cuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Philleatra Gaylor appeals an order affirming the denial of her
application for disability insurance benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We
affirm.
Gaylor argues that the administrative law judge failed to
consider the combined impact of her non-severe visual impair-
ments of myopic degeneration, cataracts, glaucoma, and monocu-
lar vision, with her severe visual impairment of myopia, but the
administrative law judge considered all records relevant to deter-
mining Gaylor’s condition as a whole. See Dyer v. Barnhart, 395
F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). And the administrative law judge
accounted for Gaylor’s myopic degeneration by including a limita-
tion on work requiring distance vision.
Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s
finding that Gaylor’s reports of the limiting effects from glaucoma,
cataracts, and monocular vision were either inconsistent with or
unsupported by the record. Specifically, Dr. Althea Turk, a consult-
ing ophthalmologist, explained that Gaylor’s report of “night blind-
ness” was unconfirmed, and cataract surgical correction was not
needed. Gaylor’s primary care physicians did not record any signif-
icant visual complaints. And the vocational expert testified that,
USCA11 Case: 22-12153 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 03/15/2023 Page: 3 of 3
22-12153 Opinion of the Court 3
even with Gaylor’s reported limitation of monocular vision in her
left eye, she still could perform her past relevant work.
Gaylor argues that the administrative law judge’s hypothet-
ical question to the vocational expert was deficient because it did
not include her inability to commute to work in certain conditions,
and that the administrative law judge failed to ask the vocational
expert for her “source(s).” These arguments are not properly be-
fore us because Gaylor did not raise them in the district court. See
Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1161 (11th Cir.
2004). For this reason, too, we decline to consider Gaylor’s argu-
ment that the administrative law judge failed to consider her attor-
ney’s questions to the vocational expert. Id.We AFFIRM the denial of Gaylor’s application for benefits.