GEORGE v. BERRYHILL, 1:17-cv-00007

Background

Plaintiff (born 1972) was found disabled beginning April 2009 for nervous system disorders; the most recent favorable medical decision (CPD) dated January 11, 2010.
Agency redetermined disability ceased as of March 31, 2014 (medical improvement); plaintiff appealed and requested a hearing before an ALJ; Appeals Council denied review.
Medical evidence: early 2009 consultative exam showed post‑traumatic neurologic deficits (tremor, gait/balance, fine movement problems); later records (2012–2014) show normal strength, coordination, gait on exam and seizure/myoclonus control when compliant with medication; some providers questioned whether events were seizures or syncope.
Treating neurologist (Dr. Hella) documented seizure control on medication and normal motor exams in 2014; state agency reviewers found medical improvement and assessed an RFC for light work with seizure‑precaution restrictions.
ALJ found the plaintiff’s subjective statements inconsistent with objective evidence, assigned significant weight to treating opinion, assessed a light‑work RFC with limitations, and—relying on VE testimony—concluded plaintiff could perform past relevant work as of March 31, 2014; therefore benefits ceased.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports cessation of benefits for medical improvement as of Jan 1/Mar 31, 2014	George argues there cannot be medical improvement after traumatic brain injury and medical record does not show improvement; ALJ ignored consultative 2009 findings	Commissioner contends later records, treating opinion, and state consultants show improvement and an RFC for light work; plaintiff’s own testimony supports functional ability	Court held substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding of medical improvement and the RFC; affirmed termination of benefits
Whether ALJ properly evaluated treating physician opinion	George implies ALJ undervalued earlier consultative findings and persistent deficits	Commissioner points to ALJ’s significant weight to Dr. Hella and consistency with other evidence	Court found ALJ permissibly gave significant weight to treating opinion as consistent with objective findings
Whether ALJ appropriately assessed credibility and daily activities	George contends ALJ erred in discounting subjective complaints	Commissioner relies on inconsistent medication compliance and plaintiff’s reported activities/job‑seeking as evidencing ability	Court accepted ALJ’s credibility determination as supported by record evidence
Whether any procedural or legal error requires remand	George alleges cessation unsupported because prior grant not challenged	Commissioner shows decision applies medical‑improvement framework under governing regs	Court found no legal error and affirmed decision

Key Cases Cited

Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (claimant bears burden; standards for termination of benefits)
Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir. 1995) (substantial evidence standard and whole‑record review)
Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580 (11th Cir. 1991) (review of ALJ factual findings)
Keeton v. Department of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 1994) (need to provide sufficient reasoning to permit meaningful review)
Lowery v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1992) (court must scrutinize the entire record to determine reasonableness of findings)