Dana Chapman v. Commissioner of Social Security
709 F. App'x 992
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Chapman applied for disability benefits (DIB and SSI) claiming multiple physical and mental impairments; an ALJ denied benefits, finding RFC for less than full range of sedentary work but that jobs existed she could perform.
- ALJ considered medical records but did not explicitly discuss a treating physician’s letter (Dr. Rodriguez) declaring Chapman “permanently disabled” or the chiropractor’s (Dr. Nalda) opinion.
- ALJ discounted Chapman’s subjective pain testimony as inconsistent with daily activities, treatment success, and some noncompliance with recommended treatment.
- Chapman sought Appeals Council review and later attempted to submit additional evidence (a form from Dr. Hardowar supporting student loan discharge) but the Appeals Council denied review.
- The district court affirmed the Commissioner; Chapman appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which reviewed for substantial evidence and proper legal standards and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by failing to weigh treating physician Dr. Rodriguez’s opinion | ALJ should have given substantial weight to treating physician’s statement that Chapman was "permanently disabled" | ALJ relied on the treating records showing conservative successful treatment and patient refusal of some options, so the conclusory disability statement lacked support | Even if ALJ erred by not explaining disregard, error harmless: good cause existed because letter was conclusory and unsupported by medical findings |
| Whether ALJ erred by not explicitly weighing chiropractor Dr. Nalda’s opinion | ALJ should have addressed chiropractor’s restrictions (avoid prolonged sitting/standing, repetitive lumbar/cervical motion) | Chiropractors are not "acceptable medical sources"; ALJ adequately discussed chiropractic treatment and RFC accommodated similar limits | No error: ALJ’s decision and RFC reflect consideration of chiropractor’s findings; no special weight required |
| Whether ALJ’s credibility finding discounting Chapman’s pain testimony is supported by substantial evidence | Chapman contends ALJ improperly discredited her subjective pain testimony | ALJ pointed to daily activities, generally successful conservative treatment, and noncompliance as bases to discredit severity claims | Affirmed: credibility finding was clearly articulated and supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether remand under sentence six is warranted to consider Dr. Hardowar’s form | Chapman sought remand as new, material evidence submitted after the administrative deadline | Commissioner argued evidence was not shown to have been withheld for good cause; form existed before Appeals Council deadline | Denied: Chapman failed to show good cause for not submitting the evidence on time, so sentence-six remand not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for Commissioner decisions)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (treating physician opinion weight and requirement to articulate reasons to disregard)
- Bell v. Bowen, 796 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1986) (conclusory disability statements unsupported by medical findings can be discounted)
- Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726 (11th Cir. 1983) (harmless-error analysis for failure to address evidence)
- Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (chiropractors are not acceptable medical sources)
- Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir. 1995) (deference to credibility findings supported by substantial evidence)
- Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780 (11th Cir. 2014) (no rigid requirement to reference every piece of evidence; substantial-evidence affirmance)
- Caulder v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 872 (11th Cir. 1986) (standards for sentence-six remand for new evidence)