Duarte v. Commissioner of Social Security, 8:15-cv-01465

Background

Duarte filed DIB and SSI claims (alleged onset June 7, 2009); initial ALJ denial (2011), Appeals Council denial, district court remand (June 2013), and combined proceedings led to a new ALJ denial (Feb. 20, 2015).
An attorney advisor issued a fully favorable DIB/SSI decision on Duarte’s July 2011 claims (Aug. 2012); the Appeals Council later reopened only the DIB portion, concluding the advisor’s decision was clearly incorrect for the period under review.
ALJ found severe impairments including degenerative spine/joint disease, RA, migraines, obesity, depression, anxiety, PTSD, and somatoform/pain disorders, but no Listings met or equaled; RFC: light work with multiple postural, environmental, pace, concentration, and social limitations.
ALJ credited State Agency non-examining physicians and afforded minimal weight to Dr. Cohen’s opinions and to low GAF scores; ALJ found Duarte could perform other work and was not disabled.
Duarte argued collateral estoppel should give preclusive effect to the attorney advisor’s earlier favorable SSI determination and challenged the ALJ’s weighing of medical opinions and GAF scores; Magistrate Judge recommended affirmance, district court adopted it and affirmed the Commissioner.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Collateral estoppel/issue preclusion from attorney-advisor favorable decision	The attorney advisor’s favorable SSI decision and Dr. Cohen’s opinion should preclude relitigation and establish disability for DIB period before DLI	Appeals Council properly reopened the favorable decision as clearly incorrect; the SSI favorable decision became final only because reopening period expired, so it lacks preclusive effect	Denied: collateral estoppel does not apply; AC had good cause to reopen and ALJ’s treatment of the reopened decision is supported by evidence
Weight to Dr. Cohen’s opinions	Dr. Cohen’s opinions show moderate–severe limits and support meeting Listing 12.04; ALJ arbitrarily minimized them	Opinions on disability/Listings are reserved to Commissioner; Dr. Cohen’s reports rely heavily on claimant’s subjective reports and lack objective support, so minimal weight was proper	Denied: ALJ permissibly gave minimal weight to Dr. Cohen’s opinions; reasons adequately articulated and supported
Weight to treatment notes / nurse records from community mental health providers	ALJ failed to assign or explain weight to these records and should have given them more weight	Notes are from non-acceptable medical sources (nurses, counselors) and mostly document subjective complaints and treatment, not formal medical opinions; ALJ considered them nonetheless	Denied: ALJ not required to assign weight to non-acceptable sources; records do not show additional limits beyond RFC
GAF scores	Pattern of low GAF scores required specific assigned weight and support more severe limitations	ALJ discussed GAFs, found them inconsistent and generally mild–moderate; GAF scores do not map directly to Listings or specific functional limits	Denied: ALJ gave little weight to the GAF scores with explanation; no remand warranted

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370 (11th Cir. 1982) (collateral estoppel applies only when issue in subsequent proceeding is identical, actually litigated, and necessary to prior determination)
Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (definition of substantial evidence and standard of review of ALJ factual findings)
Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (court must affirm if Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence even if evidence preponderates otherwise)
Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (explaining SSA’s five-step sequential evaluation for disability claims)
Hickel and other unpublished Eleventh Circuit authorities cited in the opinion are discussed but not listed here because they lack official reporter citations.