Cynthia Louise Buckwalter v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security
5 F.4th 1315
11th Cir.2021Background
- Cynthia Buckwalter applied for Social Security disability benefits alleging bipolar disorder, depression, and a history of substance abuse left her unable to work; ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed.
- The ALJ found Buckwalter had an RFC limiting her to understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions, making simple work-related decisions, and occasional interaction with others, but found jobs existed she could perform.
- A vocational expert (VE) identified three unskilled jobs (laundry worker, janitor, store laborer) with DOT reasoning level 2 described as requiring the ability to carry out “detailed but uninvolved” instructions.
- Buckwalter argued an apparent conflict existed between her RFC (limited to simple instructions) and DOT level 2 jobs, invoking Washington v. Commissioner (affirmative duty to resolve VE/DOT conflicts); she also raised (1) inconsistency between ALJ’s “great weight” to non‑treating doctors and the ALJ’s milder Paragraph B rating for concentration/persistence/pace and (2) inadequate consideration of a processing‑speed score of 71.
- The Eleventh Circuit held there was no apparent conflict between “simple” instructions and DOT level 2’s “detailed but uninvolved” instructions, and rejected Buckwalter’s other challenges, affirming the denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an RFC limited to following "simple" instructions conflicts with DOT reasoning level 2 ("detailed but uninvolved") triggering Washington duty to resolve an apparent conflict | "Simple" limitation precludes work requiring "detailed" instructions; ALJ failed to identify/resolve an apparent conflict | "Detailed but uninvolved" denotes length, not complexity; no apparent conflict exists so no Washington duty breach | No apparent conflict; ALJ did not err; affirmed |
| Whether giving “great weight" to two non‑treating physicians but assigning a milder Paragraph B rating for concentration/persistence/pace was inconsistent and unsupported | ALJ’s RFC weighting of physicians contradicts his Paragraph B finding of only mild limitation | ALJ relied on the physicians’ work‑related limitation opinions for RFC but properly performed a separate Paragraph B analysis at steps 2–3 | No reversible error; different inquiry at steps 2–3; ALJ’s mild rating supported by evidence; affirmed |
| Whether the ALJ failed to consider claimant’s processing‑speed score (FSIQ processing speed=71) and VE testimony implying low processing speed precludes work | Processing speed score should preclude sustaining required pace; ALJ ignored this measure | ALJ considered the evaluator’s report overall; VE’s reference was to percent off‑task, not the processing‑speed IQ score | No error; ALJ adequately considered the report and record; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Commissioner of Social Security, 906 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2018) (ALJ’s affirmative duty to identify and resolve apparent conflicts between VE testimony and the DOT)
- Moore v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 599 (8th Cir. 2010) (no apparent conflict between limitation to simple instructions and DOT level 2 when "uninvolved" denotes lack of complexity)
- Lawrence v. Saul, 941 F.3d 140 (4th Cir. 2019) (same conclusion aligning with multiple circuits that level 2 can be consistent with simple, routine, unskilled tasks)
- Winschel v. Commissioner of Social Security, 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to medical opinions and reasons)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Social Security, 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard that substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and reviewing court must affirm if supported by such evidence)
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (standards for appellate review of ALJ factual findings and RFC determinations)