Baxter v. Commissioner of Social Security
6:18-cv-01118
| M.D. Fla. | Aug 30, 2019Background
- Claimant Marquell T. Baxter applied for Supplemental Security Income on February 5, 2015, alleging disability beginning January 21, 1997.
- ALJ found severe impairments: sickle cell disease, obstructive sleep apnea, asthma/restrictive lung disease, and scoliosis; assigned an RFC for less than a full range of light work with multiple environmental and postural limits.
- ALJ concluded Claimant could perform jobs available in the national economy and was not disabled (decision dated September 7, 2017).
- Claimant appealed, arguing among other things that the ALJ materially mischaracterized the record (noting: misstating that Claimant had no treatment in 2016 and that neither Claimant nor counsel argued Listing 7.05 equivalence).
- Court found the ALJ misstated facts (treatment occurred in 2016; counsel did argue Listing 7.05 medical/functional equivalence) and failed to discuss large portions of the medical record, undermining the step-three listing analysis.
- Because the misstatements were material to the ALJ’s rejection of Listing 7.05 equivalence, the court reversed and remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); the court also noted an apparent inconsistency between the RFC and the vocational expert hypothetical.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ materially mischaracterized the record by stating Claimant had no treatment in 2016 | Baxter: record shows substantial 2016 treatment (Exhibits 6F, 7F); ALJ’s statement is incorrect and material | Commissioner: claimant failed to prove Listing 7.05; essentially defends ALJ’s outcome (relies on post-hoc rationale) | Court: ALJ’s statement was incorrect and material; mischaracterization undermines the decision and supports remand |
| Whether the ALJ erred by stating neither Claimant nor counsel alleged Listing-level impairment or equivalence | Baxter: counsel expressly argued Listing 7.05 (medical/functional equivalence) at hearing | Commissioner: contends claimant did not meet burden of proving Listing 7.05 | Court: ALJ’s statement was incorrect and material; ALJ failed to address counsel’s Listing arguments and did not build a logical bridge; remand required |
| Whether the ALJ adequately considered combination-equivalence to Listing 7.05 | Baxter: ALJ failed to consider time-in-treatment/crisis and hospitalizations potentially meeting Listing criteria | Commissioner: asserts record does not meet listing (post-hoc review) | Court: Substantial-evidence support for ALJ’s implicit rejection of equivalence lacking; remand ordered for proper step-three analysis |
| Whether any other errors require remedy (e.g., RFC vs hypothetical inconsistency) | Baxter: raised other issues; court notes inconsistency though not argued by claimant | Commissioner: not addressed | Court: Not dispositive now, but instructs ALJ on remand to ensure vocational hypothetical matches RFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard: ALJ decision must be supported by substantial evidence and proper law)
- Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir. 1995) (substantial-evidence standard and whole-record review requirement)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (court may not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the Commissioner)
- Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726 (11th Cir. 1983) (misstatements of fact by ALJ are harmless only if not material to the decision)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (foundational authority on substantial evidence standard)
- Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580 (11th Cir. 1991) (deference to Commissioner when supported by substantial evidence)