Bartolotta v. Commissioner of Social Security
8:18-cv-02876
| M.D. Fla. | Dec 30, 2019Background
- Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits (DIB) alleging fibromyalgia, lumbar spine problems (post‑surgery), obesity and related symptoms; insured through December 31, 2018.
- ALJ found severe impairments (lumbar spine impairment, status post lumbar surgery, fibromyalgia, obesity) but concluded claimant could perform a RFC for light work with multiple postural/environmental limits and therefore was not disabled.
- Treating sources (Dr. Thomas Dowling, orthopedic surgeon; Dr. Sheldon Blau, rheumatologist) and consultative examiner (Dr. Kanista Basnayake) gave more restrictive opinions (very limited sitting/standing, frequent absences); treating psychologist Dr. Elaine Greenwald assessed marked mental limitations.
- ALJ gave lesser weight to treating and examining physicians’ opinions, instead giving great weight to a non‑examining consultant (Dr. Louis Fuchs) and adopted his RFC; ALJ also discounted claimant’s subjective symptom testimony.
- Magistrate Judge concluded the ALJ erred: the ALJ did not give adequate, supported reasons for discounting treating/examining opinions, improperly relied on a non‑examining opinion that did not address fibromyalgia, and mischaracterized claimant’s activities; recommended reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to treating/examining medical opinions | ALJ improperly discounted treating (Dowling, Blau) and consultative (Basnayake) opinions without "good cause"; record supports their restrictions (MRI, EMG, tender points) | ALJ permissibly found treating/examining opinions inconsistent with objective findings and claimant's activities, thus gave them less weight | Court: ALJ failed to articulate/support good cause; treating and examining opinions supported by objective and clinical findings and were mischaracterized—discounting not supported; remand required |
| Reliance on non‑examining medical opinion (Dr. Fuchs) | ALJ erred by relying on a non‑examining reviewer who contradicted treating/examining opinions and failed to consider fibromyalgia or post‑op limitations | Commissioner defends weight to Dr. Fuchs as file reviewer and orthopedic specialist whose opinion reflected totality of evidence | Court: A non‑examining opinion that contradicts treating/examining opinions and omits major impairments cannot alone constitute substantial evidence; ALJ’s reliance on Fuchs insufficient |
| Weight to treating psychologist (Dr. Greenwald) | Greenwald’s opinion merited treating‑source deference and should have been credited | ALJ permissibly gave little weight: short treatment period (four visits over ~1 month), inconsistency with record and claimant’s limited mental health treatment/activities | Court: ALJ properly treated Greenwald as an examining (not long‑term treating) source and reasonably discounted her opinion; no reversal on this point |
| Evaluation of claimant’s subjective complaints/credibility | ALJ mischaracterized daily activities, failed to consider fibromyalgia’s largely subjective signs, and therefore erroneously discounted claimant’s testimony | ALJ relied on lack of objective support, claimant’s activities, and hearing demeanor to discount symptom statements | Court: ALJ’s credibility reasons rest on mischaracterizations and unsupported findings (activities and objective‑evidence conclusions); discounting not supported—further supports remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (establishes substantial evidence standard)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (describes sequential evaluation for disability)
- Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (treating physician rule and deference)
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (value of treating physician conclusions for subjective conditions)
- Edward v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580 (non‑examining physician opinion alone cannot constitute substantial evidence when it contradicts treating opinion)
- Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (pain standard for evaluating subjective symptoms)
- Marbury v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d 837 (ALJ may reject subjective complaints but must give explicit, adequate reasons)
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (scope of judicial review: legal standards reviewed de novo, factual findings for substantial evidence)
- Hargress v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 883 F.3d 1302 (ALJ must articulate good cause for discounting treating opinion)