Laharold Woodhouse v. Commissioner of Social Security

USCA11 Case: 25-13593 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2026 Page: 1 of 7

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13593 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ LAHAROLD WOODHOUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:24-cv-00995-CPT ____________________ Before JORDAN, KIDD, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Laharold Woodhouse applied for, and was denied, Disabil- ity Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) from the Social Security Administra- tion (the “SSA”). After exhausting his administrative appeals, he USCA11 Case: 25-13593 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2026 Page: 2 of 7

I. BACKGROUND In January 2023, Woodhouse applied for DIB on account of various ailments affecting his neck, back, shoulders, knees, ankles, and feet. Woodhouse also claimed he was suffering from severe migraines “anywhere from three, sometimes four days a week.”

Woodhouse explained that he was taking medication to mitigate the migraines, but that the medication was impacting his ability to focus and sleep.

The SSA denied his application in April.1 Woodhouse re- quested reconsideration and was denied again in June. Woodhouse was granted a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), which took place telephonically in December. Ultimately, the ALJ also concluded that Woodhouse was not “disabled” under the So- cial Security Act (the “Act”) and hence was not entitled to DIB. The

USCA11 Case: 25-13593 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2026 Page: 3 of 7

25-13593 Opinion of the Court 3 Appeals Council denied Woodhouse’s request for review, and so the ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner’s final decision. 2 Having exhausted his administrative remedies, Woodhouse sought judicial review with the District Court. The District Court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner, and Woodhouse timely appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Our review is limited to whether substantial evidence sup- ports the Commissioner’s decision and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. Walker v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 987 F.3d 1333, 1338 (11th Cir. 2021). Our review of the District Court’s decision, as well as the Commissioner’s legal con- clusions, is de novo. Id. “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such rel- evant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Buckwalter v. Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 5 F.4th 1315, 1320 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Crawford, 363 F.3d at

2 The Commissioner is the supervisor and director of Social Security, and thus the decisions of the agency are often signed in his name. SOCIAL SECURITY, Organizational Structure of the Social Security Administration, https://www.ssa.gov/org/orgOC.htm (last visited June 18th, 2026). See Crawford v. Comm’r Of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004) (“We re- view the Commissioner’s decision to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.”).

USCA11 Case: 25-13593 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2026 Page: 4 of 7

SSA regulations prescribe a five-step process to evaluate a disability claim: (i) First, the SSA considers the applicant’s current work activity; (ii) Second, it considers the severity of each of the applicant’s impairments, and denies any applicant with no “severe” impairments; (iii) Third, the SSA considers whether any impair- ment meets or equals its enumerated list of conditions that auto- matically qualify for DIB; (iv) Fourth, it considers an applicant’s re- sidual functional capacity (“RFC”), i.e., his ability to perform work despite his limitations; 3 and (v) Fifth, the SSA considers whether the applicant can adjust to other work given his age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

USCA11 Case: 25-13593 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2026 Page: 5 of 7

25-13593 Opinion of the Court 5 Woodhouse contests only the ALJ’s decision at step four.

Specifically, he contends that because the ALJ found at step two that Woodhouse’s migraine headaches were “severe,” the ALJ was required to explain in writing the limiting effects of those migraines when calculating his RFC. Because the ALJ’s RFC discussion “was silent” as to his migraines, Woodhouse contends that the ALJ erred as a matter of law, and so we must reverse.

Woodhouse is correct that the ALJ needed to include a nar- rative discussion of his migraine headaches because they were a properly alleged impairment. Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245, 1268 (11th Cir. 2019) (“At step four of the sequential analysis, the ALJ conducts . . . an assessment, based upon all of the relevant evidence, of a claimant’s remaining ability to do work despite his impairments.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). But we disa- gree that the ALJ’s RFC discussion ignored Woodhouse’s mi- graines. In fact, as the Commissioner notes on appeal, the “ALJ mentioned Woodhouse’s migraine headaches over twenty times throughout her thorough and well-reasoned decision.”

Unfortunately for Woodhouse, the ALJ found his assertions about the intensity of his migraine-related limitations to be incon- sistent with the medical evidence. And we are in no position to sec- ond guess that conclusion. Smallwood v. Schweiker, 681 F.2d 1349, 1351 (11th. Cir. 1982) (“[W]e may not decide the facts anew or sub- stitute our judgment for that of the [Commissioner].”) The ALJ ob- served that, while Woodhouse had been prescribed migraine med- ication in July 2022, the record does not show any refills after that USCA11 Case: 25-13593 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2026 Page: 6 of 7

More broadly, the evidence demonstrated that Woodhouse was able to ride a bike, play golf, drive, operate a travel business, and even travel to Greece. Two reviewing physicians, Drs. Carlos Cordero and Steven Arkin, found that Woodhouse possessed a greater capacity for physical work than the ALJ had determined.

Despite this finding, the ALJ provided more exertional limitations to help accommodate his migraine headaches than recommended by the doctors. Accordingly, the ALJ clearly considered Wood- house’s migraines, and her conclusion that Woodhouse retained substantial RFC was supported by substantial evidence.

As for Woodhouse’s legal argument that the ALJ failed to construct a “logical bridge” between a discussion of the migraine impairment and its RFC conclusion, we find it meritless. As dis- cussed, the ALJ addressed the severe impairment of Woodhouse’s migraine headaches. The relevant evidence supporting Wood- house’s claims about the headaches’ impact on his ability to func- tion was limited, while the opposing evidence was copious.

USCA11 Case: 25-13593 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2026 Page: 7 of 7

25-13593 Opinion of the Court 7 IV. CONCLUSION The ALJ’s conclusions were supported by substantial evi- dence, and the correct legal standards were applied. We affirm the District Court’s decision to uphold the Commissioner’s decision.

AFFIRMED.