Deana McGriff v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
654 F. App'x 469
11th Cir.2016Background
- McGriff applied for SSI and DIB; an ALJ denied benefits and the Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed and denied a sentence-six remand; McGriff appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
- ALJ gave less than controlling weight to McGriff’s treating physician, citing inconsistencies between the physician’s opinion and medical records/exam notes.
- McGriff had varying GAF scores: April 2011 (52), July 2011 (54), July 2011 (claimed 50), and April 2012 (67); the ALJ relied on improvement over time.
- McGriff submitted new evidence to the Appeals Council: a social worker’s opinion and “quality of life” records; the Council declined to consider them.
- McGriff moved under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to remand based on a May 2013 physician’s report she did not submit to the Appeals Council; the district court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred in discounting treating physician’s opinion | ALJ should have given controlling weight to treating physician | ALJ pointed to inconsistencies between the opinion and medical records, permitting reduced weight | Affirmed: ALJ had good cause to discount the opinion because it conflicted with treatment notes and other records |
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted GAF score(s) | GAF 50 shows serious impairment and ALJ wrongly treated it as nondisabling | ALJ relied on other GAF scores (>50) and documented improvement with treatment | Affirmed: higher and improving GAF scores supported non-disability finding |
| Whether Appeals Council erred by not considering new evidence (social worker, QoL records) | Council should have considered the new evidence | QoL records post-dated ALJ decision (not chronologically relevant); social worker is not an "acceptable medical source" so opinion was not material | Affirmed: Council properly excluded QoL records and social worker opinion was not material to establishing an impairment |
| Whether district court erred denying sentence-six remand / waiver issue | McGriff argued district court should remand based on new physician report; also argued she didn’t waive appeal of remand denial | Commissioner argued McGriff waived challenge by not objecting to magistrate judge’s recommendation | Affirmed: McGriff failed to show good cause for not submitting the report to the Appeals Council; district court correctly denied remand (court also found no waiver of appellate review of legal conclusions) |
Key Cases Cited
- Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir.) (reviewing ALJ decision as Commissioner’s final decision)
- Lewis v. Barnhart, 285 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir.) (de novo review of legal conclusions; substantial-evidence standard for factual findings)
- Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir.) (standards for affording weight to treating physician opinions)
- Hunter v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 808 F.3d 818 (11th Cir.) (deference to ALJ’s articulated reasons for weighting treating opinion)
- Washington v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 806 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir.) (Appeals Council duty to consider new, material, chronologically relevant evidence)
- Milano v. Bowen, 809 F.2d 763 (11th Cir.) (materiality standard for new evidence in Appeals Council review)
- Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir.) (limitations on non-acceptable medical sources to establish impairments)