Bud Gaskin v. Commissioner of Social Security
533 F. App'x 929
11th Cir.2013Background
- Claimant Bud Gaskin had right total knee replacement and degenerative left knee disease; sought Social Security disability insurance benefits.
- Treating orthopedist Dr. Scott Duffin performed surgery and follow-up and provided a functional assessment, stating pain "often" interfered with attention and concentration.
- The ALJ assigned significant weight to Dr. Duffin’s opinion but did not explicitly address the concentration/attention limitation and omitted it from the RFC and VE hypotheticals.
- ALJ found Gaskin could perform other work existing in significant numbers and denied benefits; district court affirmed.
- Eleventh Circuit reviews whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether proper legal standards were applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly considered treating physician’s opinion about pain-related concentration limits | Gaskin: ALJ, by giving significant weight to Dr. Duffin, effectively accepted the opinion that pain often interferes with attention/concentration and thus should have included corresponding limitations in the RFC and VE hypotheticals | Commissioner: ALJ’s RFC and hypotheticals implicitly captured relevant limitations and substantial evidence supports denial | Court: Vacated and remanded — ALJ failed to address Duffin’s specific concentration finding and must expressly consider it and reflect resulting RFC/hypotheticals |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (treating physician testimony requires substantial or considerable weight unless good cause shown)
- Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) (appellate court must defer to ALJ if supported by substantial evidence)
- Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2003) (claimant bears burden to prove disability and present supporting evidence)
- Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir. 1997) (ALJ must articulate reasons when giving less weight to treating physician)
- 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)
- Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (VE testimony is substantial evidence only when hypotheticals include all claimant’s impairments)
- Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 1999) (Commissioner bears burden to show significant number of jobs claimant can perform)