Almeida v. Berryhill, 1:19-cv-22013

Background

Plaintiff applied for Social Security disability (alleging psychiatric and multiple physical impairments); ALJ denied benefits for the period ending December 31, 2017.
ALJ found several severe impairments (depression, anxiety, PTSD, diplopia, diabetes, vestibular dysfunction, degenerative disc disease) and assessed an RFC for light work with multiple restrictions (e.g., limited driving, left-eye only work, occasional posturals, frequent handling/fingering, unskilled/low‑stress tasks, only occasional contact with others).
At step 5 the ALJ relied on a vocational expert (VE) who identified jobs (mail clerk, general office assistant) and concluded a significant number of jobs existed; claimant’s requests for review were denied by the Appeals Council.
On judicial review Plaintiff argued four errors: (1) VE job numbers/step 5, (2) symptom/credibility evaluation, (3) weight given to two state‑agency psychologists, and (4) failure properly to weigh treating physicians’ opinions.
The Magistrate Judge affirmed the ALJ on issues 1–3 but found harmful procedural error on issue 4: the ALJ failed to address the treating psychiatrist (Dr. Turner)’s treatment notes/opinions; remand ordered for the ALJ to evaluate Dr. Turner’s opinions and reassess RFC and step 5.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Step 5 / VE job numbers	VE over‑counted jobs by using broad SOC categories; ALJ should have resolved apparent conflicts with BLS/OES figures	VE need not provide underlying data; claimant failed to object or cross‑examine VE at hearing; no DOT conflict	ALJ’s step 5 reliance on VE was supported (no DOT conflict and claimant did not challenge VE at hearing); but overall step 5 outcome subject to remand because of other error
2. Symptom/credibility evaluation	ALJ undervalued Plaintiff’s pain and psychiatric symptoms, producing an RFC that is too permissive	ALJ considered the record and Plaintiff’s daily activities; he limited RFC for mental symptoms (unskilled, low‑stress, occasional contact)	ALJ’s symptom evaluation and resulting RFC restrictions as to symptoms were supported by substantial evidence
3. Weight to state‑agency psychologists	ALJ gave “great weight” but omitted some specific limitations (pace, supervision for multi‑step tasks) without explanation	State consultants are non‑treating experts; ALJ may give great weight without adopting every hypothetical or equivocal phrase	Giving great weight to non‑examining consultants was permissible; omission of every nuance did not undermine the RFC because those nuances would not change RFC
4. Weight to treating physicians (esp. Dr. Turner)	ALJ failed to address long‑term treating psychiatrist Dr. Turner’s notes/opinions (including severe functional limitations) and provided no reasons for discounting treating‑source evidence	Govt: Turner’s notes reflect reports and a disability statement (agency decision reserved to Commissioner), so omission is harmless	Remand required. ALJ failed to discuss and weigh Dr. Turner’s treating‑source opinions; omission was not harmless and undermines the RFC/step 5 findings

Key Cases Cited

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (establishing substantial‑evidence standard for SSA findings)
Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (defining substantial evidence in Social Security context)
Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (ALJ not to reweigh evidence; treating‑opinion weight rules)
Washington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353 (ALJ’s duty to identify and resolve apparent VE/DOT conflicts)
Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (VE need not always produce underlying data; reliability tested by cross‑examination)
Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (ALJ must give explicit, adequate reasons when rejecting claimant’s subjective complaints)
Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245 (check‑box forms not automatically conclusory; Eleventh Circuit guidance on weighing opinions)
Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (deference to ALJ factfinding when supported by substantial evidence)