Jacqueline Ann Anteau v. Commissioner of Social Security
708 F. App'x 611
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jacqueline Anteau appealed the denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits, challenging the ALJ’s treatment of her Asperger’s disorder diagnosis and the weight given to a licensed clinical social worker’s (LCSW) opinion.
- LCSW Julie Wells provided opinions that Anteau was incapable of maintaining competitive employment; Wells is an “other source,” not an acceptable medical source under SSA rules.
- Psychologist Dr. Gerald Hodan diagnosed Anteau with Asperger’s disorder but relied largely on Anteau’s subjective reports; the ALJ gave his opinion little weight.
- Dr. Michael S. Greenberg, whose exam the ALJ credited, found no signs of Asperger’s disorder and reported intact memory and adequate cognitive functioning in several domains.
- The ALJ found Anteau retained residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work; the ALJ did not explicitly address Listing 12.10 for pervasive developmental disorders but implicitly rejected that she met the listing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred in weighing LCSW Julie Wells’s opinion | Wells’s opinions should carry more weight and show disabling limitations | Wells is not an "acceptable medical source"; ALJ properly considered but could assign less weight, especially given contradictory psychologist opinion | Affirmed: ALJ permissibly gave Wells little weight because she is an "other source" and her opinions were contradicted by the psychologist the ALJ credited |
| Whether substantial evidence shows Anteau met Listing § 12.10 for Asperger’s disorder | Record supports Asperger’s diagnosis and meets Listing 12.10 criteria | No acceptable medical-source evidence shows the required marked limitations; evidence shows at most mild/moderate limitations | Affirmed: Substantial evidence supports that Anteau did not meet or equal Listing 12.10 (no marked limitations or decompensation) |
| Whether ALJ’s failure to explicitly mention Listing 12.10 was reversible error | ALJ should have explicitly evaluated Listing 12.10 and Asperger’s disorder | Implicit finding suffices where ALJ reaches step 4 and decision shows consideration of impairments | Affirmed: Implicit finding acceptable; substantial evidence supports result |
| Whether the ALJ improperly discounted psychologist Hodan’s Asperger’s diagnosis | Hodan’s diagnosis establishes a medically determinable impairment | Hodan relied on subjective reporting; evidence undermines his opinion | Affirmed: ALJ reasonably discounted Hodan’s opinion because it lacked objective support and was contradicted by Greenberg |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff bears burden to prove disability; review standard explained)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (defines substantial evidence standard and scope of appellate review)
- Hutchison v. Bowen, 787 F.2d 1461 (11th Cir. 1986) (ALJ’s implied finding that claimant does not meet a listing may be sufficient when ALJ proceeds to step four)
- Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) (ALJ need not mention every piece of evidence if decision enables meaningful review)