Borroto v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:17-cv-00673

Background

Plaintiff Mariela Borroto applied for SSI alleging disability from lumbar degenerative disc disease and affective disorder; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council denied review.
ALJ found severe impairments of degenerative disc disease and affective disorder, and assessed an RFC for a limited range of sedentary work (simple, routine tasks; limited postural activities; sit/stand option).
Consultative examiner Dr. Pascal Bordy examined Plaintiff post-hearing and opined, among other restrictions, that a cane was medically necessary and set strict limits on sit/stand/walk and postural and environmental exposures.
The ALJ gave Dr. Bordy’s opinion “substantial weight” but did not incorporate several of Bordy’s specific limitations (notably cane need and detailed sit/stand/walk limits) into the RFC or into the VE hypotheticals.
At step five the ALJ relied on VE testimony identifying sedentary jobs (tube operator, document preparer, order clerk) but did not resolve an apparent conflict between the VE’s job selections (reasoning levels 2–3) and the RFC’s limitation to "simple, routine tasks."

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ accounted for Plaintiff’s medically‑necessary cane	Borroto: ALJ failed to include or explain rejecting Bordy’s opinion that a cane is medically necessary; VE testified cane would preclude identified jobs.	Commissioner: ALJ need not recite every opinion detail; record supports discounting cane-necessity for ambulation beyond 5–10 ft; any error harmless because VE did not say cane precludes sedentary jobs.	Court: ALJ erred by not explaining how cane use affects RFC or including appropriate VE hypotheticals; remand required.
Whether ALJ properly weighed and incorporated Dr. Bordy’s limitations	Borroto: ALJ gave Bordy substantial weight but omitted many significant restrictions (sit/stand/walk, posturals), without saying which parts were adopted or rejected.	Commissioner: ALJ permissibly adopted parts consistent with record; Bordy not a treating source; ALJ need not mirror consultative opinion.	Court: ALJ inadequately articulated which parts of Bordy’s opinion were adopted or rejected; remand required for explanation and reevaluation.
Whether VE testimony supports step five given RFC limitation to "simple, routine tasks"	Borroto: Identified jobs have reasoning levels 2–3 (require detailed instructions), conflicting with simple-task limitation.	Commissioner: ALJ asked VE about DOT consistency and relied on VE; prior cases held reasoning level 2–3 can be compatible; any conflict was not apparent.	Court: Under Washington, ALJ must identify and resolve apparent conflicts between VE testimony and DOT; here an apparent conflict existed and ALJ failed to resolve it; remand required.
Whether errors were harmless	Borroto: Errors are not harmless because VE said cane would preclude jobs and unresolved Bordy limits could eliminate work.	Commissioner: Any omissions were harmless because other records support RFC and VE testimony.	Court: Errors not harmless — record does not show ALJ adequately resolved cane issue, Bordy omission, or DOT conflict; remand required.

Key Cases Cited

Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to medical opinions and reasons)
Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir. 1995) (definition of substantial evidence)
Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (RFC based on all relevant evidence after step three)
Washington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2018) (ALJ has affirmative duty to identify and resolve apparent conflicts between VE testimony and the DOT)
Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (medical opinions may be discounted when inconsistent with the record)