[D O NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED

U .S . COURT OF APPEALS

E L E V E N T H CIRCUIT

O c to b e r 25, 2006

N o . 06-12431 T H O M A S K. KAHN

N o n - A r g u m e n t Calendar CLERK

D . C. Docket No. 05-00567-CV-T-MAP

M A R Y A N N GALLINA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

A p p e al from the United States District Court

fo r the Middle District of Florida

(O cto b er 25, 2006)

B efo re ANDERSON, BIRCH and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

P E R CURIAM:

P la in tif f- ap p e lla n t Mary Ann Gallina ("Appellant") appeals the district court o rd er affirming the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and su p p lem en tal security benefits under 42U.S.C. § 405(g) and 42U.S.C. § 1 3 8 3 (c)(3 ). Appellant sought these benefits due to work limitations arising from a r an g e of health problems. The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found that im p a ir m e n ts due to sarcoidosis, mild distal gastritis and a small hiatal hernia were "s ev e r e" but did not automatically qualify her for disability benefits since they w ere not equivalent to one of the listed impairments in the Social Security Act. 20 C .F .R . §§ 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g), Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4.

The ALJ further found that Appellant's testimony regarding the additional im p airm en ts was not totally credible and did not reflect medical diagnoses.

Additionally, the ALJ determined, on the basis of testimony from a vocational ex p ert, that while Appellant would not be able to return to her past position, she retain ed enough residual functional capacity to perform other jobs that existed in sig n ifican t numbers in the national economy.

On appeal, the Appellant claims that the ALJ failed to properly consider w h eth er Appellant's additional symptoms of fatigue, shortness of breath, th alassem ia and iron deficiency resulted in a severe impairment and that the ALJ w as required to seek further medical examination to evaluate these symptoms. A p p ellan t further alleges that by failing to adequately include the effect of these s ym p to m s in his questions to the vocational expert, the ALJ solicited incorrect in fo rm atio n about the Appellant's ability to find other work. Finally, Appellant co n ten d s that the district court erred in refusing to remand her case to the ALJ in lig h t of new evidence demonstrating the existence of greater injury.

Standard of Review T h e district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42U.S.C. § 405(g). We have ap p ellate jurisdiction over the district court's decision pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1 2 9 1 . In reviewing appeals from decisions of the ALJ, we do not re-weigh ev id en ce or substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ. Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F .2 d 1143, 1145 (11th Cir. 1991). "The Commissioner's factual findings are c o n c lu s iv e if they are supported by `substantial evidence,' consisting of `such relev an t evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a c o n c lu s io n .'" Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting F a lg e v. Apfel, 150 F.3d 1320, 1322 (11th Cir. 1998)). However, we review de n o vo the legal principles upon which the ALJ based his decision. Moore v. B a rn h a rt, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We also review de n o v o a district court's decision not to remand a case back to the ALJ in light of n ew evidence. Vega v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 265 F.3d 1214, 1218 (11th Cir. 2001). D is c u s s io n I n disability claims, an applicant must demonstrate that she has a severe im p airm en t or combination of impairments that impact her functional capacity.

Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999). Appellant alleges that she d em o n strated that she suffered from fatigue, shortness of breath, thalassemia and iro n deficiency and that such evidence was not considered by the ALJ in evaluating h er claim. The record demonstrates, to the contrary, that the ALJ considered all m ed ically documented conditions submitted by the Appellant, including the d iag n o sis of microcytosis, which was related to her possible thalassemia and iron d e f ic ie n c y. Appellant alleges nevertheless that the ALJ was required to seek fu rth er testimony with regard to this condition. While the ALJ has a basic o b lig atio n to develop a full and fair record, medical sources generally need only be re-co n tacted when the evidence received from that source is inadequate to d eterm in e whether the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(e) and 4 1 6 .9 1 2 (e); Graham v. Apfel, 129 F.3d 1420, 1422 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam).

W e generally will not question the ALJ's development of the record unless it "r ev e a ls evidentiary gaps which result in unfairness and clear prejudice." Brown v. S h a la la , 44 F.3d 931, 935 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (internal citation and q u o ta tio n marks omitted). In light of the fact that the ALJ accepted the medical d iag n o sis of microcytosis and considered it in conjunction with the numerous ev alu atio n s made by other doctors, we find that no such gaps exist in this case.

Additionally, the ALJ considered, and discredited, Appellant's subjective testim o n y with regard to fatigue and shortness of breath. We note that "credibility d e te rm in a tio n s are the province of the ALJ." Moore, 405 F.3d at 1212. While the A L J is required to articulate explicit and adequate reasons for questioning an ap p lican t's credibility, the ALJ need not "specifically refer to every piece of e v id e n c e in his decision." Dyer v. Barnhart 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) ( p e r curiam). The record clearly demonstrates that the ALJ relied on the medical rep o rts that stated that Appellant had limited problems with fatigue and shortness o f breath in making his determination. We find that his conclusion is supported by su b stan tial evidence and we affirm.

A p p ellan t next argues that the ALJ's analysis of the work available to A p p ellan t was flawed since his question to the vocational expert failed to in co rp o rate the limitations arising from fatigue and shortness of breath. We have alread y determined that the ALJ acted properly in discrediting testimony about th ese symptoms. We can therefore conclude that it was not necessary for the ALJ to raise them before the vocational expert.

Finally, Appellant posits that the district court erred by not remanding the case when she presented new evidence of her illness to the court. To be entitled to a remand for further administrative proceedings that include new evidence, an ap p lican t must show, inter alia, that such evidence is material. Falge, 150 F.3d at 1 3 2 3 . The tests that Appellant relies on were conducted between March 22, 2005 an d June 7, 2005 - several months after the ALJ's November 23, 2004 decision.

This evidence is therefore reflective of Appellant's worsened condition at the time, rath er than of the extent of her disability prior to the decision, which was welld o c u m e n te d through other medical evidence. We thus find that the evidence was n o t material to the administrative proceeding, and we affirm.

AFFIRMED.