Cutler v. Berryhill(CONSENT), 2:16-cv-00193

Marilyn Cutler applied for Title II and XVI disability benefits alleging post‑MVA injuries (brain contusion, cervical stenosis, neck/back/knee pain, memory/speech issues) with onset Feb 25, 2014.
Initial claims denied; ALJ held two hearings and ordered a consultative neurological exam (NCV/EMG) after the first hearing; exam performed by Dr. Larry Epperson.
Imaging (CT, multiple MRIs) taken shortly after the accident were largely unremarkable except for a small scalp hematoma, mild C3–C5 foraminal stenosis, and a small tibial bone contusion; treatment was conservative (physical therapy, limited work excuses).
Dr. Epperson’s one‑time exam and testing found no electrophysiologic radiculopathy/neuropathy but produced an MSS limiting certain postural/manipulative/environmental activities while also stating Cutler could perform medium work and numerous daily activities.
ALJ gave little or no weight to Dr. Epperson’s limiting findings as inconsistent with his objective findings and the longitudinal record, found Cutler capable of the full range of medium work, and denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly addressed/discounted Dr. Epperson’s medical opinion	Cutler: ALJ failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting Epperson’s limitations, which would preclude medium work if credited	Commissioner: ALJ permissibly rejected the limitations because they contradicted Epperson’s own objective findings and the rest of the record	Court: ALJ adequately articulated reasons and substantial evidence supports rejection of those limitations
Whether ALJ considered medication side effects on ability to work	Cutler: ALJ failed to account for drowsiness/dizziness/sickness from medications	Commissioner: Record lacks evidence (provider notes or observed complaints) showing disabling side effects; ALJ considered and rejected claimant’s testimony as not credible	Court: ALJ sufficiently considered side effects; no objective support for disabling effects; decision supported by substantial evidence

Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir. 1997) (review standard—substantial evidence and correct legal standards)
Miles v. Chater, 84 F.3d 1397 (11th Cir. 1996) (court must defer to commissioner when supported by substantial evidence)
Kelly v. Apfel, 185 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 1999) (affirmance if supported by substantial evidence and correct legal standards)
McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026 (11th Cir. 1986) (five‑step disability evaluation)
Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir. 1995) (burden shift to Commissioner at step five)
Adams v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 586 F. App’x 531 (11th Cir. 2014) (ALJ may reject physician opinion supported by contrary evidence)
D’Andrea v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 398 F. App’x 944 (11th Cir. 2010) (consulting physician’s RFC may be rejected when undermined by own findings)