Philleatra Joyce Gaylor v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 15, 2023
• Docket: 22-12153
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit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.