Fowler v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:16-cv-00665
M.D. Fla.Aug 2, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Melissa Fowler applied for Supplemental Security Income alleging COPD, impulse control disorder, depression, and a learning/ intellectual impairment; ALJ denied benefits finding she could perform light work with limitations.
- ALJ found Fowler’s symptom statements not entirely credible and noted poor medication compliance and limited treatment follow-up.
- After administrative denial and Appeals Council denial, Magistrate Judge Mirando recommended affirming the Commissioner; Fowler objected to two findings.
- Fowler argued the ALJ failed to explicitly evaluate Listing 12.05 (intellectual disability) and improperly discounted a vocational evaluation from Successful Pathways, LLC.
- District court reviewed de novo the objections, found substantial evidence supports an implicit finding that Fowler does not meet Listing 12.05(C), and held the vocational evaluation was from non-acceptable medical sources and not entitled to controlling weight.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by not explicitly finding whether Fowler meets Listing 12.05(C) for intellectual disability | Fowler: ALJ failed to evaluate Listing 12.05 explicitly and should have found her presumptively disabled under 12.05(C) given qualifying IQ and other evidence | ALJ implicitly evaluated Listing 12.05 and substantial evidence (daily activities, independence, school performance, care of child) rebuts presumption of deficits in adaptive functioning | Court: No error; implicit finding supported by substantial evidence that Fowler lacks requisite adaptive deficits to meet Listing 12.05(C) |
| Whether ALJ erred by failing to consider/ accord weight to Successful Pathways vocational evaluation | Fowler: Evaluation showed she lacks capacity for full-time work and the ALJ ignored it | Commissioner: Evaluators are not "acceptable medical sources" (physicians/psychologists); at most "other medical sources" whose opinions are not entitled to controlling weight; ALJ considered the record as a whole | Court: No reversible error; evaluation from non-acceptable sources not binding and ALJ was not required to give it controlling weight |
| Whether ALJ’s RFC and reliance on VE testimony to find significant jobs in economy lacked substantial evidence | Fowler: RFC limitations and omitted evaluation undermine the VE’s conclusions about jobs available | Commissioner: ALJ’s RFC supported by acceptable medical opinions and activities evidence; VE testimony properly relied upon | Court: Affirmed; substantial evidence supports RFC and VE testimony about jobs in the national economy |
| Credibility of claimant’s symptom reports and weight of medical evidence | Fowler: Symptoms and vocational eval show disabling limitations | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly found claimant’s statements not fully credible; noncompliance with treatment undermines severity | Court: Credibility determination upheld and considered in weighing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 1999) (five-step sequential evaluation framework for disability claims)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (burden of persuasion through step four and burden shift at step five)
- James v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., [citation="657 F. App'x 835"] (11th Cir. 2016) (ALJ may imply a Listing determination from the decision)
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard of review—substantial evidence rule)
- Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) (court may not reweigh evidence; must defer to ALJ if supported by substantial evidence)
- Crayton v. Callahan, 120 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 1997) (elements required to meet Listing 12.05)
- Hodges v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2001) (IQ scores create rebuttable presumption of deficits in adaptive functioning)
- Lowrey v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1992) (discussing IQ score presumptions for intellectual disability)
- Rodriguez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., [citation="633 F. App'x 770"] (11th Cir. 2015) (daily activities and work history can rebut Listing 12.05 presumption)
- Farnsworth v. Soc. Sec. Admin., [citation="636 F. App'x 776"] (11th Cir. 2016) (ALJ may discount opinions from non-acceptable medical sources)
- Miles v. Soc. Sec., [citation="469 F. App'x 743"] (11th Cir. 2012) (medical source statements that claimant is "unable to work" do not bind the ALJ)