George v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner, 2:11-cv-03518

claimant James Darren George sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The court reviews the SSA decision only for substantial evidence and correct legal standards.
The ALJ found claimant’s impairments could cause symptoms but his pain and limitations were not fully credible.
The ALJ credited the consultative exam (Dr. Jariwala) over the treating physician (Dr. Gibson) and did not give controlling weight to Dr. Gibson’s total disability opinions.
The ALJ considered claimant’s receipt of unemployment benefits as one factor in credibility, consistent with Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp. and my own memorandum.
The decision ultimately affirmed the Commissioner, with costs taxed against claimant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Unemployment benefits and credibility	George argues unemployment claims undermine credibility.	Astrue seeks proper consideration as one factor, not a dispositive measure.	ALJ properly weighed unemployment benefits as one credibility factor.
Subjective pain testimony	George asserts his pain was fully credible and supported.	ALJ found inconsistencies with history and MDC evidence.	ALJ’s rejection of full pain credibility supported by substantial evidence.
Weight of treating physician	Gibson’s total disability opinion should be given controlling weight.	ALJ properly weighed and found reasons to discount it in light of other evidence.	ALJ gave greater weight to Jariwala and adequately explained why Gibson’s opinion was not controlling.
Hypothetical to vocational expert	ALJ should have posed a hypothetical including all limitations.	VE testimony not required if claimant can perform sedentary work.	No VE testimony required; ALJ not obliged to hold separate hearing.
Cleveland/CRISTAUDO memorandum application	Cleveland and Cristaudo memo require careful handling of unemployment evidence.	ALJ applied controlling authority appropriately.	ALJ’s approach consistent with Cleveland and the Cristaudo memorandum.

Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999) (unemployment and disability claims can be consistent; need explanation for inconsistencies)
Carmickle v. Commissioner, SSA, 533 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2008) (unemployment benefits credibility factor in SSA analysis)
Schmidt v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2005) (unemployment applications can affect credibility assessment)
Workman v. Commissioner, 105 F. App’x 794 (6th Cir. 2004) (applications for unemployment and disability benefits inherently inconsistent)
Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007 (11th Cir. 1987) (requires explicit reasons when rejecting pain testimony)
Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580 (11th Cir. 1991) (framework for proving disability with objective and subjective evidence)
Landry v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir. 1986) (pain standard requires objective corroboration or explanation)
Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (weighting of medical opinions; reserved issues)
Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731 (11th Cir. 1981) (duty to develop a full and fair record)