Burr v. Commissioner of Social Security
5:18-cv-00518
| M.D. Fla. | Apr 27, 2020Background
- Plaintiff filed for Disability Insurance Benefits on March 20, 2015, alleging onset July 1, 2014; claim was denied initially and on reconsideration.
- A hearing was held December 7, 2017; the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision in February 2018, and the Appeals Council denied review in August 2018.
- ALJ found severe impairments: lumbar and cervical degenerative disc disease, shoulder impairment, arthritis, plantar fasciitis, obesity, depression, and anxiety.
- ALJ assigned an RFC: less than full sedentary work; occasional stoop/kneel/crouch/crawl; never climb ladders/ropes/scaffolds; occasional ramps/stairs; avoid hazards; frequent reaching/handling/fingering; no production-rate pace work; only occasional routine changes.
- Based on the RFC and VE testimony, ALJ concluded Plaintiff could perform jobs existing in significant numbers (addresser, call‑out operator, charge account clerk) and therefore is not disabled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ lacked authority under the Appointments Clause | Burr argued the ALJ was not properly appointed and so could not make a final decision | Commissioner prevailed previously on partial summary judgment; ALJ's decision stands | Court already rejected Appointments Clause challenge; not relitigated here |
| Whether missing documentation re: March 6, 2017 reconsideration ("informal remand") requires remand | Burr contends lack of record documentation of the March 6, 2017 Disability Determination & Transmittal might mean the ALJ lacked the full record and thus merits remand | Commissioner: record shows claim proceeded through all administrative steps; absence of additional proof is speculative and not prejudicial | No remand; plaintiff’s speculation of missing material is insufficient to show evidentiary gaps or prejudice |
| Whether ALJ’s RFC and step‑five finding are supported by substantial evidence | Burr implicitly challenges sufficiency of the record to support the ALJ’s RFC and job findings via the missing-documentation argument | Commissioner: ALJ considered treatment notes, medical opinions, and testimony; VE identified suitable jobs consistent with RFC | RFC and step‑five determination are supported by substantial evidence; alternative jobs identified are plausible and unchallenged |
Key Cases Cited
- Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (discusses the five‑step sequential evaluation framework)
- Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir. 1995) (defines substantial‑evidence standard in benefits review)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (articulates deference to administrative fact‑finding supported by substantial evidence)
- George v. Astrue, [citation="338 F. App'x 803"] (11th Cir. 2009) (remand requires showing record inadequacy or prejudice from evidentiary gaps)
- Graham v. Apfel, 129 F.3d 1420 (11th Cir. 1997) (same: remand justified only when gaps demonstrate prejudice)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (allocation of burdens in sequential disability analysis)