Benson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner, 4:16-cv-00673

Background

Plaintiff Cord Lee Benson applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability beginning June 2009; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council declined review, making the ALJ decision final.
Medical record: chronic low‑back pain/degenerative disc disease, extensive lower‑extremity varicosities with edema, obesity, hepatitis C, coronary artery disease, and depression; largely conservative treatment, intermittent ER visits, and primary‑care/clinic notes showing normal to mildly–moderately restricted exam findings.
Consultative exam by Dr. Fava reported marked limitations (e.g., sit/stand/walk <1 hour; lift <3 lbs; cane use); state reviewers (Drs. Hayne, Estock, Anderson) found ability to perform light work with restrictions including sit/stand option and limited lower‑extremity push/pull.
ALJ adopted an RFC for light work with a sit/stand option, multiple environmental and non‑exertional limits (simple 1–2 step tasks, limited interactions), found plaintiff unable to perform past work but able to perform other jobs (assembler, hand packer, call out wire worker), and denied disability.
Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s evaluation of (1) consulting physician opinion, (2) subjective pain credibility, (3) vocational expert testimony, and (4) whether new evidence submitted to the Appeals Council warranted remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Weight given to consultative examiner Dr. Fava	ALJ erred in giving Dr. Fava little weight and instead crediting non‑examining reviewers	ALJ permissibly discounted a one‑time examiner when his opinions were unsupported by objective findings and inconsistent with the record	ALJ properly gave little weight to Dr. Fava; other non‑examining opinions reasonably relied upon
Credibility of subjective pain testimony	ALJ improperly discredited Benson’s pain reports and penalized lack of treatment given alleged inability to afford care	ALJ provided specific, supported reasons (benign imaging, conservative treatment, daily activities) and noted no showing of inability to afford most care	ALJ’s credibility findings supported by substantial evidence; consideration of treatment choices proper here
Use of vocational expert evidence	VE hypotheticals omitted limitations from Dr. Fava and thus not substantial evidence	ALJ need not include limitations he reasonably rejected as unsupported; VE testimony based on the RFC the ALJ adopted was proper	VE testimony based on ALJ’s RFC constituted substantial evidence
New evidence to Appeals Council / remand	Records (additional clinic notes, inpatient psych admission, therapist form) warrant remand because they show greater limitations	Appeals Council correctly found the new evidence not material; it would not reasonably change the outcome	New evidence was not material or chronologically persuasive to require remand

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (defines "substantial evidence")
Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (review scope: courts defer to ALJ factual findings)
Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) (standards for evaluating subjective pain testimony and credibility)
Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 1999) (vocational‑expert hypothetical must include all impairments the ALJ accepts)
McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617 (11th Cir. 1987) (no special deference to single‑examining physician)
McCruter v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 1544 (11th Cir. 1986) (severity measured by work‑related functional effect)
Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (Appeals Council must consider new, material, chronologically relevant evidence)
Washington v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 806 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2015) (court reviews Appeals Council’s materiality/chronological relevance determinations de novo)
Wilder v. Chater, 64 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 1995) (contrast — rejecting ALJ’s rejection of sole medical evidence)
McCloud v. Barnhart, 166 Fed. Appx. 410 (11th Cir. 2006) (ALJ may reject physician opinion when evidence supports contrary conclusion)