Arturo O. Simon v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
7 F.4th 1094
| 11th Cir. | 2021Background
- Arturo Simon filed a 2015 Title II disability application alleging bipolar disorder, chronic depression, anxiety, panic attacks, memory and concentration problems; he previously filed a denied 2014 claim.
- Treating psychiatrist Dr. Rosa Turner treated Simon ~2013–2017 (≈32 visits), repeatedly diagnosed bipolar disorder with severe symptoms, and completed a mental capacities evaluation finding extreme/marked limitations and that Simon could not work.
- SSA consultative examiners (Dr. Elsa Marban and Dr. Miesha Merati) observed cooperation, orientation, some intact cognition and a good fund of information but noted poor recent memory, concentration problems, and workplace-related difficulties.
- The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Turner, Dr. Marban, and Simon’s hearing testimony, found an RFC for medium, simple, unskilled work with only occasional interaction, and denied benefits; the Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the record de novo as to legal issues and for substantial-evidence as to facts and reversed and remanded because the ALJ failed to articulate good cause for discounting treating and consultative opinions and claimant testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Simon's Argument | SSA/Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight accorded to treating psychiatrist (Dr. Turner) | ALJ failed to articulate good cause to discount extensive treating notes and opinion that Simon cannot work | Dr. Turner’s opinions inconsistent with longitudinal record, consultative exams, and claimant’s daily activities | Reversed and remanded: ALJ did not show genuine inconsistencies or adequate reasons to discount Dr. Turner; must reevaluate and articulate weight given |
| Weight accorded to consultative examiner (Dr. Marban) | ALJ improperly gave little weight to consultive opinion that Simon would struggle with concentration, persistence, and supervisors | Dr. Marban’s clinical findings allegedly inconsistent with her conclusions and other evidence indicating capacity for unskilled work | Reversed and remanded: ALJ’s rationale was unsupported and too vague; must reassess and explain weight |
| Credibility of Simon’s hearing testimony | ALJ failed to identify specific record evidence that undermines Simon’s testimony about severity and limiting effects | ALJ concluded testimony inconsistent with medical and other evidence | Vacated: credibility finding unsupported; on remand ALJ must reassess credibility after properly weighing medical opinions and identify record portions if still disbelieving testimony |
| Substantial-evidence/sufficiency of ALJ decision | Denial not supported because ALJ mischaracterized/omitted probative treating evidence and relied on inadequate rationales | ALJ relied on consultative findings and claimant activities to support RFC and denial | Reversed: decision not supported by substantial evidence; remand for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (standard when Appeals Council declines review)
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (scope of de novo review of legal issues)
- Henry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 802 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2015) (substantial-evidence standard in SSA cases)
- Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (affirmance requirement when substantial evidence supports decision)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (good-cause factors for discounting treating opinions)
- Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir. 1997) (treating physician rule requires articulated reasons for discounting)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must clearly articulate reasons for giving less weight to treating opinions)
- MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050 (11th Cir. 1986) (court must scrutinize record; intelligence or brief good-functioning observations do not negate severe depression)
- Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2019) (treating-notes fluctuation—good days do not negate overall disability; generalized neutral findings insufficient to reject treating opinion)
- Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2011) (bipolar disorder fluctuates; snapshots do not disprove chronic disability)
- Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731 (5th Cir. 1981) (agency must supply justification and explain weight given to probative exhibits)
- Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 2000) (clinical exam setting differs materially from workplace; observations in clinic do not necessarily reflect workplace capacity)