Delaizarah Zgraggen Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security
490 F. App'x 192
11th Cir.2012Background
- Rosario appeals the district court’s denial of disability benefits and SSI after an ALJ denial.
- Rosario argues the ALJ gave little weight to treating psychiatrist Dr. Kirmani’s opinions.
- Rosario contends the VE hypothetical did not account for moderate concentration, persistence, or pace.
- The opinion adopts the five-step sequential framework for disability determinations under 20 C.F.R. § 416.920.
- The ALJ found Rosario has moderate concentration, persistence, and pace limitations but can perform simple, routine tasks in a limited environment based on medical evidence.
- The ALJ relied on Dr. Willens’ assessment and other medical evidence to support capacity for sustained simple work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to treating psychiatrist | Rosario argues Dr. Kirmani’s opinions should be given substantial weight. | AS the ALJ found inconsistencies and lack of support in Dr. Kirmani’s own records, good cause exists to give little weight. | ALJ properly gave little weight due to inconsistency and lack of supporting explanation. |
| Hypothetical to VE and concentration/persistence/pace | Hypothetical did not include Rosario’s concentration/persistence/pace limitations. | Hypothetical accounted for limitations by restricting to simple, routine tasks based on the record. | Hypothetical sufficiently accounted for limitations; substantial evidence supports determinations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (weight of treating opinions and substantial evidence standard)
- Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (final decision review in SSA appeals)
- Miles v. Chater, 84 F.3d 1397 (11th Cir. 1996) (not reweighing evidence; deference to Commissioner when substantial evidence supports)
- Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1996) (no reweighing of evidence; substantial evidence standard)
- Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580 (11th Cir. 1991) (treating physician inconsistency can justify discounting opinion)
- Johns v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 551 (11th Cir. 1987) (explains good cause requirement for discounting treating opinions)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (vocational expert testimony and hypotheticals must reflect impairments)
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) (hypothetical must include all impairments to be substantial evidence)
- Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1988) (good cause and weight of medical opinions)
- Broughton v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 960 (11th Cir. 1985) (standards for evaluating medical opinions)