Barbara Green v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
695 F. App'x 516
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Barbara Green applied for SSDI alleging disability beginning Sept. 10, 2010, citing fibromyalgia, lupus, hypertension, cancer, and mental impairments; ALJ denied benefits on Nov. 22, 2013.
- ALJ found severe impairments but not disabling, assigned an RFC for sedentary work with restrictions (sit/stand option, simple routine tasks, limited public interaction) and relied on vocational expert identifying available jobs.
- After the ALJ decision, Green submitted additional records (Jan–Aug 2014) and treatment notes from Dr. Wyndol Hamer (first visit Dec. 2013) to the Appeals Council; Appeals Council denied review as evidence related to a later time.
- Green sued in district court arguing (1) Appeals Council improperly refused to consider new, chronologically relevant evidence and (2) ALJ’s credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence; district court affirmed.
- Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo whether the Appeals Council erred in refusing to consider new evidence and for substantial evidence the ALJ’s credibility determination; the court affirmed the denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appeals Council erred by not considering Dr. Hamer notes as chronologically relevant | Hamer’s notes relate to pre-decision period and should have been considered | Evidence dated after ALJ decision was not chronologically relevant and did not show it applied to prior period | Appeals Council did not err; notes were dated after decision and lacked indication they applied to pre-decision period |
| Whether Appeals Council improperly refused to consider Hamer’s Physical Capacities Form | Form should be included and would be material, warranting remand | Form was not in administrative record before Appeals Council; no good cause shown for adding it later | No reversible error; form was not clearly before Appeals Council and plaintiff failed to show good cause for district-court remand under §405(g) |
| Whether ALJ’s credibility rejection of Green’s subjective complaints lacked substantial support | ALJ failed to articulate adequate reasons; testimony should be credited | ALJ cited infrequent/ conservative treatment, inconsistent daily activities, lack of corroborating side-effect evidence, and non-disability reason for job loss | Credibility finding supported by substantial evidence; ALJ gave specific, adequate reasons |
| Whether SSR 16-3p should be applied retroactively to assess credibility | SSR 16-3p should govern credibility assessment | SSR 16-3p not retroactive and was not in effect at time of ALJ decision | Court declined retroactive application; assessed credibility under pre-existing standards and upheld ALJ |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for ALJ decisions)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Social Security, 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir.) (deference to ALJ factfinding)
- Ingram v. Commissioner of Social Security Admin., 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir.) (presentation of new evidence at administrative stages)
- Washington v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner, 806 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir.) (when post-decision evidence may be chronologically relevant)
- Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir.) (five-step sequential evaluation framework)
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir.) (requirements for discrediting subjective pain testimony)
- Owens v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir.) (limitations on post-hoc rationalizations for agency decisions)
- Mitchell v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, 771 F.3d 780 (11th Cir.) (Appeals Council not required to detail reasons when denying review)
- Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir.) (ALJ must consider claimant’s ability to afford treatment when relying on noncompliance)
- Henry v. Commissioner of Social Security, 802 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir.) (ALJ may rely on multiple factors beyond failure to obtain specialized treatment)
- Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir.) (review of credibility findings requires articulated reasons supported by record)