3:18-cv-01494
M.D. Fla.Mar 23, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Jerry Jackson applied for SSDI in October 2015, alleging disability beginning August 15, 2014.
- The ALJ issued a partially favorable decision: not disabled before November 1, 2017; disabled beginning November 1, 2017.
- ALJ findings: severe impairments of left-shoulder tendinopathy and diabetes with neuropathy; RFC pre-November 2017 = medium work with additional left‑upper‑extremity and postural limits; RFC from November 1, 2017 = light work with similar nonexertional limits.
- ALJ gave little weight to state‑agency reviewer Dr. Rothman’s pre‑Nov‑2017 exertional limits and some weight to consultative examiner Dr. Lazo’s 2018 findings for the post‑Nov‑2017 period; she relied on contemporaneous treatment records and Jackson’s testimony that he worked until layoff for nonmedical reasons in 2014.
- Jackson appealed, arguing the ALJ erred in discounting Dr. Rothman and Dr. Lazo (2018) and that the pre‑Nov‑2017 medium‑work RFC lacked substantial evidentiary support; the district court affirmed the Commissioner.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to Dr. Rothman (state‑agency reviewer) for pre‑Nov‑2017 period | ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Rothman’s opinion limiting Jackson to <medium work | ALJ permissibly gave little weight because objective records showed largely normal exams and improvement with conservative treatment | Court: No error; ALJ stated weight and reasons; substantial evidence supports discounting Rothman pre‑Nov‑2017 |
| Treatment of Dr. Lazo’s Feb. 2018 consultative RFC (and its retroactive application to Aug. 2014) | ALJ failed adequately to explain discounting of Lazo’s 2018 RFC and ignored his opinion that limitations applied from Aug. 2014 | Dr. Lazo was a non‑treating consultative examiner; ALJ reasonably credited 2018 findings only for post‑Nov‑2017 deterioration and relied on 2016 exam for earlier period | Court: No reversible error; ALJ implicitly and reasonably rejected Lazo’s 2018 limitations for pre‑Nov‑2017 period; substantial record support for deterioration after Nov. 1, 2017 |
| RFC finding of medium work before Nov. 1, 2017 — need for a medical opinion explicitly endorsing medium work | Plaintiff contends no concrete medical evidence shows ability to lift 50 lbs occasionally / 25 lbs frequently; ALJ needed a medical opinion matching RFC | Commissioner: ALJ may base RFC on the record as a whole (treatment notes, testimony); no specific physician opinion is required matching every RFC detail | Court: Unpersuasive — substantial evidence (testimony, treatment records, 2016 consultative exam) supports medium‑work RFC pre‑Nov‑2017; no specific matching medical opinion required |
| ALJ’s consideration of prior degenerative disc disease / 2008 lumbar MRI | ALJ ignored DDD and 2008 MRI, so RFC unsupported | ALJ considered the record as a whole (including 2016 consultative exam and postural limits); an old MRI alone does not mandate greater restrictions | Court: No error; ALJ was not required to discuss every item; a 2008 MRI years before onset plus continued work does not overturn RFC when objective findings are otherwise benign |
Key Cases Cited
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (defines "substantial evidence" as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept)
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (court may not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the Commissioner)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to medical opinions and reasons)
- Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir. 1990) (if substantial evidence supports an ALJ’s decision, court must affirm)
- Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (2009) (party attacking agency determination bears burden of showing error is harmful)
- N.L.R.B. v. Wyman‑Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759 (1969) (no need to remand when doing so would be an idle and useless formality)