Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 3:21-cv-00720

Plaintiff applied for Period of Disability, Disability Insurance Benefits, and SSI; ALJ denied benefits in a decision dated December 16, 2020, finding no disability from the December 8, 2019 onset date through the decision.
In December 2019 Plaintiff underwent a right midfoot amputation after ER admission for gangrene, sepsis, and diabetes-related complications and received ongoing follow-up care for wound/incision healing and mobility limitations.
At the administrative hearing Plaintiff testified to persistent pain from a chronic blister/ulcer, balance and walking difficulties, use of a cane, need to elevate the foot, and intolerance of his shoe/brace; the ALJ discounted this testimony and found an RFC for sedentary work with limitations.
After the ALJ decision Plaintiff submitted two new treating-podiatrist notes (Jan. 29, 2021 and Mar. 19, 2021) to the Appeals Council documenting a chronic non-pressure ulcer, problems tolerating the brace/shoe, and a recommendation of no weightbearing.
The Appeals Council declined review, finding the records did not relate to the period at issue; the district court reviewed de novo and held the records were new, chronologically relevant, and material, and therefore reversed and remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Appeals Council erred in not remanding for new evidence	The Jan. 29 and Mar. 19, 2021 treating notes are new, relate back to the period before the ALJ decision, and are material	Records post-date the ALJ decision and therefore do not relate to the period at issue	Court reversed and remanded: records are new, chronologically relevant, and material; remand to consider notes and reconsider RFC
Whether ALJ properly discredited Plaintiff's symptom testimony	ALJ improperly discounted testimony about pain, cane use, and need to elevate foot	ALJ relied on medical records showing good response to treatment and ambulation with brace without assistive device	Not addressed on the merits (court remanded because new evidence may change the analysis)
Whether Commissioner met burden to identify other work in national economy	Vocational evidence insufficient given limitations	Commissioner relied on vocational testimony and RFC to show other work exists	Not addressed on the merits (court remanded)

Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (sets substantial-evidence standard and scope of appellate review)
Lewis v. Barnhart, 285 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2002) (de novo review of legal conclusions)
Pupo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 17 F.4th 1054 (11th Cir. 2021) (Appeals Council must consider additional medical records when chronologically relevant)
Washington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 806 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2015) (post-decision medical evidence may be chronologically relevant and material if it relates back)
Hyde v. Bowen, 823 F.2d 456 (11th Cir. 1987) (materiality standard: reasonable possibility that new evidence would change the outcome)