Bazinet v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:11-cv-00061

Bazinet filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance for the period ending December 31, 2006.
ALJ Mary Brennan issued an unfavorable decision on August 4, 2009; Appeals Council denied review on January 6, 2011, making the Commissioner’s decision final.
The ALJ found obesity to be a severe impairment but held that, through the date last insured, Bazinet retained the residual functional capacity for light work with certain limitations.
Medical evidence before the date last insured showed cervical radiculopathy, carpal tunnel syndrome, GERD, and obesity; mental health history became prominent post-2008 but pre-dating the insured period had limited documentation.
Treating physician opinions (Dr. Gallego and Dr. Villotti) were argued to support disability, but the ALJ discounted opinions not grounded in contemporaneous evidence and relied on other record evidence and a State Agency physician’s findings.
The VE testified that Bazinet could perform his past work under certain residual functional capacity scenarios, and the ALJ ultimately concluded the Plaintiff was not disabled during the relevant period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantial evidence for impairment evaluation	Bazinet argues the ALJ failed to properly consider obesity and the combination of impairments.	The ALJ adequately evaluated all impairments in combination and relied on substantial evidence.	ALJ supported impairment evaluation with substantial evidence.
Weight given to treating physician Gallego	ALJ did not properly weigh Gallego’s treating-physician opinion that Bazinet was disabled since 2001.	Gallego’s opinion is not supported by contemporaneous evidence and is not controlling; the ALJ properly weighed it.	ALJ properly discounted Gallego’s checkbox opinion; no reversible error.
Weight given to treating physician Villotti	ALJ failed to give proper weight to Villotti’s assessment of severe standing/walking limitations.	Villotti’s checkbox limitation was not adequately explained or tethered to the relevant period; ALJ appropriately weighed it with other evidence.	ALJ did not err in weighing Villotti’s opinion.
Use of Medical-Vocational Guidelines	Grid rules (MR 202.06) mandate disability finding given age, education, and lack of transferable skills.	The ALJ found the Plaintiff could perform past relevant work and used a VE to assess other work; grids were not sole basis.	Medical-Vocational Guidelines did not require a finding of disability.

Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (five-step framework and substantial evidence standard guidance)
Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir. 1995) (grid reliance vs. expert testimony in disability determinations)
Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) (proper deference to ALJ findings and substantial evidence rule)
Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir. 1997) (treating physician weight considerations and opinion evaluation)
Morrison v. Barnhart, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (discussion of treating source opinions and ALJ duties)