Hartman v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:12-cv-00013
M.D. Fla.Sep 10, 2012Background
- Hartman filed a Title XVI SSI claim alleging disability beginning December 2, 2004.
- The initial ALJ decision (2009) found Hartman not disabled, prompting Appeals Council remand.
- On remand, a different ALJ held a further hearing and issued an unfavorable decision (May 12, 2010) denying benefits.
- Hartman sought review; the District Court is evaluating for reversal/remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- The report recommends reversal and remand to permit Hartman’s counsel to cross-examine the vocational expert (VE).
- The Appeals Council instructed further evidence gathering, including VE testimony, and transferability of skills analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ violate due process by limiting cross-examination and post-hearing evidence review? | Hartman’s counsel was not allowed to cross-examine the VE or review VE responses. | Record does not show the VE responses were relied upon; other evidence supported the RFC. | Remand warranted to allow cross-examination of the VE. |
| Did the ALJ comply with the Appeals Council remand order regarding transferability of skills and VE evidence? | ALJ failed to obtain/consider VE testimony on skill transferability for Hartman’s age and past work. | VE evidence was ultimately used; ALJ followed remand directives by requesting VE inputs. | ALJ followed the remand to some extent, but remand is necessary to allow cross-examination of VE and ensure proper procedures. |
| Is the change in Hartman’s RFC from sedentary to light on remand supported and proper given remand instructions? | RFC should reflect limitations identified earlier; remand was necessary for proper rationale. | RFC must reflect evidence; the reorganized RFC complied with remand directives to provide rationale. | Remand recommended to reevaluate RFC with appropriate support and cross-examination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (court emphasizes substantial evidence review and deference to ALJ findings)
- Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir. 1995) (five-step analysis and substantial evidence standard in social security appeals)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (establishes substantial evidence standard and judicial review framework)