Bryant L. Burgos v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security
705 F. App'x 794
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Burgos applied for DIB and SSI in July 2012 alleging disability (onset Feb 2008) from chronic back pain and resulting depression/anxiety after auto accidents; he received multiple pain treatments and regular mental-health treatment from psychiatrist Dr. Maximo Monterrey beginning Oct 2012.
- Monterrey, Burgos’s treating psychiatrist, completed two opinion forms (2013 and 2014) describing marked limitations in concentration, attendance, ability to complete a workweek, and inability to tolerate even low-stress work; expected impairments to persist ≥12 months.
- The ALJ found Burgos’s physical impairments (disc disease) severe, found his mental impairments non-severe (mild limitations), and assessed a residual functional capacity (RFC) for light work with occasional stooping/climbing; the RFC opinion did not explicitly state any weight given to Monterrey’s opinions.
- A vocational expert (VE) testified that a person limited to simple instructions could still perform certain unskilled jobs, but that two unscheduled breaks or being off-task 15% of the day would preclude all work.
- The ALJ denied benefits at steps four/five, the Appeals Council declined review, and the district court affirmed; Burgos appealed arguing the ALJ failed to state the weight given to his treating psychiatrist’s opinions and improperly assessed credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by failing to state the weight given to treating psychiatrist Monterrey’s opinions | Burgos: ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion and reasons for discounting it | Commissioner: ALJ sufficiently discussed Monterrey’s report at step two and an inference of giving little weight is permissible; any error was harmless | Court: ALJ erred by not identifying the weight given to Monterrey’s opinions and reasons for discounting them; remand required |
| Whether error was harmless as to step two (severity) | Burgos: Error could affect severity determination | Commissioner: Any error harmless because ALJ found severe physical impairments, and step two requires only one severe impairment | Court: Error harmless at step two because physical impairments suffice to meet step-two threshold |
| Whether error was harmless as to RFC and steps four/five | Burgos: Failure to weigh treating psychiatrist could materially affect RFC and ability to perform unskilled work | Commissioner: Monterrey effectively opined Burgos could do unskilled work, so RFC would stand | Court: Error not harmless — Monterrey’s opinions include limitations inconsistent with unskilled work; ALJ’s failure to weigh them prevents meaningful review |
| Whether court should address credibility assessment error | Burgos: ALJ improperly assessed credibility re: mental impairments | Commissioner: District court supplied reasons supporting adverse credibility finding | Held: Court did not decide because remand for weighing treating opinion was necessary; credibility issue left to ALJ on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (standard of review when Appeals Council denies review)
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (substantial-evidence review and scope of appellate factfinding)
- Marbury v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d 837 (11th Cir. 1992) (credibility determinations reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726 (11th Cir. 1983) (harmless-error standard in social security context)
- Sharfarz v. Brown, 825 F.2d 278 (11th Cir. 1987) (ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to medical opinions)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (treating-physician rule and when good cause exists to discount)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must articulate reasons for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion; cannot post-hoc rationalize)
- Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir. 1997) (failure to articulate reasons for giving less weight to treating physician is reversible error)