FLEMMING v. COLVIN, 1:13-cv-00150

Background

Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from Jan 2010; claims denied and ALJ found not disabled; Appeals Council denied review; magistrate judge recommends affirming Commissioner.
Relevant history: head trauma in Jan 2010 (assault/fall); prior TBI history; intermittent psychotic episodes and substance abuse (methamphetamine, marijuana); multiple short inpatient psychiatric admissions.
Treatment records show improvement with medication and abstinence (21 Century, Moccasin Bend); repeated noncompliance with meds and continued substance use during relevant period.
At hearing plaintiff testified to social anxiety, short attention span, headaches, and ongoing marijuana use for symptom relief; mother reported persistence of cognitive/behavioral problems.
ALJ found severe impairments of personality disorder and historic traumatic brain injury, formulated an RFC limiting plaintiff to medium work with simple 1–2 step tasks, non-production pace, and infrequent/superficial contact, and concluded jobs exist in significant numbers.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ erred at Step Two by not listing psychosis as a severe impairment	Flemming: ALJ omitted psychosis as a separate severe impairment, so ALJ failed to assess combined effects	Commissioner: ALJ identified at least one severe impairment (personality disorder and TBI) and considered psychotic episodes in the record and RFC	No reversible error; any Step Two omission was harmless because ALJ considered psychosis in the RFC and evaluated impairments in combination
Whether ALJ failed to consider combined effects of impairments	Flemming: Combined mental impairments (including psychosis) significantly limit basic work activities	Commissioner: ALJ discussed all medical evidence (including psychotic episodes, noncompliance, and substance-induced behavior) and limited RFC accordingly	Denied — ALJ considered combined effects; RFC reflects mental limits tied to records
Whether ALJ improperly attributed psychosis to non-mental causes (i.e., substance use)	Flemming: Psychosis should be treated as a severe, non-de minimis impairment regardless of substance history	Commissioner: Record supports that many psychotic episodes were substance-induced and improved with medication/abstinence	Court accepted ALJ’s view that much psychotic behavior was self-induced; findings supported by evidence
Whether substantial evidence supports ALJ’s step-five finding of jobs existing	Flemming: Limitations from psychosis/brain injury preclude competitive work	Commissioner: RFC and testimony/Grids/VE framework support availability of jobs	Affirmed — substantial evidence supports ALJ’s step-five conclusion

Key Cases Cited

Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir. 1995) (standard for substantial evidence review)
Walden v. Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1982) (substantial evidence and factfinder deference)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (evidence standards in administrative hearings)
Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580 (11th Cir. 1991) (deference to Commissioner when supported by substantial evidence)
Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996 (11th Cir. 1987) (burden shifting and use of the Grids)
Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (practice of burden shifting at step five)
Wolfe v. Chater, 86 F.3d 1072 (11th Cir. 1996) (limits on using the Grids with non-exertional impairments)
Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585 (11th Cir. 1987) (step-two sufficiency when at least one severe impairment identified)
McCruter v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 1544 (11th Cir. 1986) (definition of severe impairment threshold)
Maziarz v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 837 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1987) (harmless error where ALJ identified severe impairment)