Frederick Bernard Freeman v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
593 F. App'x 911
11th Cir.2014Background
- Freeman applied for Supplemental Security Income; ALJ denied and appeals to Eleventh Circuit.
- Medical records showed lower back pain treated conservatively, degenerative right-ankle arthritis, partial left Achilles rupture, and reported alcohol/marijuana use.
- Consultative examiner Dr. Harriet Steinert opined Freeman could continuously lift 20 lbs, occasionally lift up to 100 lbs, sit up to 8 hours, and stand/walk up to 2 hours each in an 8-hour day.
- ALJ found back pain non-severe but found several severe impairments and adopted an RFC allowing a wide range of medium and light work, with some additional restrictions (e.g., cane use).
- ALJ relied on a vocational expert (VE) — after posing hypotheticals reflecting Freeman’s credible limitations — to conclude jobs exist in the national economy Freeman can perform.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Freeman’s lower back pain is a "severe" impairment at step two | Back pain significantly limits work ability and should be found severe | Medical record shows isolated sprain treated conservatively; other severe impairments were found and symptoms considered later | Court: Substantial evidence supports ALJ; any error was harmless because other severe impairments were found and symptoms considered at later steps |
| Whether RFC should be limited to sedentary work due to 2-hour stand/walk limits | Dr. Steinert’s limits on standing/walking force a sedentary RFC | Dr. Steinert also opined lifting/pushing/pulling consistent with medium work; regs define medium by lifting, not standing/walking | Court: Substantial evidence supports medium/light RFC; standing/walking limits do not compel sedentary RFC here |
| Whether ALJ properly relied on VE and Grids / posed adequate hypotheticals | VE hypotheticals omitted limitations and ALJ misapplied Grids | ALJ posed hypotheticals including credible limitations (even more restrictive than Dr. Steinert) and properly used VE instead of exclusive Grid reliance | Court: ALJ’s hypotheticals and VE testimony were adequate; substantial evidence supports step-five finding |
| Whether ALJ had duty to order further imaging (MRI) | ALJ should have ordered an MRI of feet/ankles to develop record | Claimant bears burden to prove disability; ALJ ordered consultative exam and developed record sufficiently | Court: No duty to order MRI; ALJ met duty to develop full and fair record |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir.) (standard of review — substantial evidence and de novo legal review)
- Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026 (11th Cir.) (claimant’s burden to show severe impairment)
- Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585 (11th Cir.) (any severe impairment suffices at step two; harmless-error rule)
- Bowen v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 629 (11th Cir.) (consider impairment combination through sequential steps)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir.) (step-five requirement: jobs in national economy given RFC)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir.) (two avenues: Grids or VE; use of VE when full range of work not available)
- Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir.) (hypothetical to VE must include claimant’s credible impairments)
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir.) (hypothetical need include impairments, not every symptom)
- Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir.) (claimant bears burden to prove disability)
- Allen v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1200 (11th Cir.) (ALJ’s duty to develop full and fair record)
- Freeman v. Schweiker, 681 F.2d 727 (11th Cir.) (discussing improper "sit and squirm" adjudication)