Carl Evans v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, 551 F. App'x 521

Evans injured his back circa June 7, 2007, diagnosed with degenerative disc disease and depressive disorder, and applied for DIB and SSI benefits.
Treating physician Dr. Bienvenido Samera completed physical exams (2009–2010) and a mental RFC finding multiple marked and two extreme limitations, concluding Evans could not work.
Non-treating consultative/agency reviewers (Drs. Schoenrock, Peterson, Rowan) concluded Evans’s mental impairments were not severe enough to preclude work.
The ALJ found a combination of severe impairments but not meeting/listing-level, gave reduced weight to Samera’s opinion, adopted a RFC with moderate concentration limits, and posed a hypothetical to a VE describing that RFC.
The VE identified jobs the RFC claimant could perform; when Evans’s counsel added a marked concentration limitation (based on Samera), the VE said no jobs existed.
The magistrate and Appeals Council affirmed the denial; Evans appealed, arguing improper rejection of his treating physician and failure to credit the VE answer tied to Samera’s RFC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ improperly rejected treating physician Samera’s opinion	Evans: ALJ lacked medical expertise and improperly discredited treating physician; Samera’s RFC was consistent with at least one reviewer	ALJ: Good cause existed—Samera’s extreme/marked conclusions contradicted his own exam notes, other physicians’ opinions, and claimant’s reported activities	Court: ALJ had good cause, articulated reasons, and substantial evidence supports discounting Samera’s opinion
Whether ALJ erred by relying on VE testimony to find jobs existed despite VE’s answer to Evans’s hypothetical tied to Samera	Evans: VE’s response adopting Samera’s RFC established disability from June 7, 2007	ALJ: The controlling hypothetical reflected the RFC supported by majority medical evidence; VE testimony was properly relied upon	Court: Hypothetical matched record-supported RFC (moderate concentration); VE testimony constituted substantial evidence; Appeals Council did not err

Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000) (Appeals Council decision becomes Commissioner’s final decision)
Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) (standard for reviewing Commissioner’s final decision)
Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (deference to ALJ factfinding; review standards)
Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (review of legal principles de novo; substantial evidence standard)
Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir. 1997) (treating physician rule and good cause to discount opinion)
Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278 (11th Cir. 1987) (ALJ must state weight given to medical opinions and reasons)
Crawford v. Comm’r of Social Security, 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (court will not reweigh evidence if substantial evidence supports decision)
Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must include all impairments in VE hypothetical)
Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 1999) (VE testimony can constitute substantial evidence)