Bedami v. Commissioner of Social Security
8:16-cv-02015
M.D. Fla.Jan 2, 2018Background
- Frank Bedami sought judicial review of the denial of his supplemental security income claim.
- The ALJ found Bedami not disabled after a hearing and medical evidence review.
- The Appeals Council denied Bedami’s request for review; Bedami timely filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3).
- Bedami was born in 1954 and has a high school education; past relevant work included industrial cleaner.
- The ALJ identified COPD, history of atrial fibrillation post-ablation, and carpal tunnel as severe impairments, and found Bedami could perform medium work with specific environmental and handling limitations.
- The ALJ concluded Bedami could perform his past relevant work as an industrial cleaner and was therefore not disabled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing/walking vs RFC finding | ALJ implicitly adopted Goodpasture’s six-hour stand/walk limitation. | ALJ did not adopt that limitation; RFC allowed medium work without standing/walking restriction. | RFC supported by substantial evidence; no error. |
| Environmental exposure limitation and VE reliance | VE testimony supports medium work with greater than concentrated exposure; ALJ erred by not reflecting limitations. | Hypothetical to VE matched RFC; Dr. Goodpasture’s opinion as consultative source not controlling. | VE testimony based on RFC; substantial evidence supports the decision. |
| Handling hazardous equipment and sleep apnea evidence | ALJ ignored medical evidence of limitations around hazardous equipment due to sleep apnea. | RFC already includes no concentrated exposure to hazardous machinery; sleep apnea not controlling. | No reversible error; substantial evidence supports the RFC and restriction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (claimant bears heavy burden to prove disability and past work)
- Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983) (scope of review; court defers to ALJ findings if supported by substantial evidence)
- Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) (limits on reweighing evidence on appeal)
- Keeton v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 1994) (legal standard for review; proper application of law required)
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) (substantial evidence standard and reviewing ALJ findings)
- Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726 (11th Cir. 1983) (harmless error doctrine in ALJ determinations)
- Freeman v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 593 F. App’x 911 (11th Cir. 2014) (hypotheticals to VE must reflect RFC and impairments)