Jerry F. Popham, Jr. v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security
681 F. App'x 754
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- ALJ denied Jerry Popham’s applications for SSI and DIB, finding severe mental impairments but an RFC permitting other work; Popham appealed.
- Popham submitted to the Appeals Council a post‑decision MRFC questionnaire completed by Dr. Douglas Cooper and PA Tamara Thorn and Gateway progress notes.
- The Appeals Council added the new evidence to the record, stated it considered it, and denied review because the evidence did not provide a basis for changing the ALJ’s decision.
- The MRFC questionnaire asserted severe, lifelong work‑limiting psychiatric symptoms (hallucinations, paranoia, inability to interact or tolerate stress, frequent interruptions), but Gateway progress notes, other treating records, and consulting exams did not corroborate those extreme limitations.
- Consulting psychologist Dr. Greg Cox examined Popham and found only moderate depression, largely intact cognition, ability to relate to others, and only mild-to-moderate functional limitations; state psychologists agreed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appeals Council erred by denying review after considering new evidence | MRFC questionnaire shows disabling limitations and thus the Appeals Council should have granted review | Appeals Council considered the MRFC but reasonably concluded it did not change the outcome because it conflicted with record | Appeals Council did not err; denial affirmed |
| Whether the MRFC questionnaire was chronologically relevant | MRFC relates to the period before ALJ decision because providers treated Popham during that period | MRFC was completed after ALJ decision but Appeals Council accepted it as relating back | Court assumed MRFC chronologically relevant and still found no error |
| Whether Appeals Council had to provide detailed analysis of new evidence when denying review | Appeals Council’s brief statement was insufficient | Precedent allows a short statement when evidence was added and considered | Short explanation was adequate; no indication Appeals Council failed to consider evidence |
| Whether treating providers’ MRFC controls over consulting examiner | Drs. Cooper and Thorn are treating providers; their opinion should be given controlling weight | Treating opinion conflicted with its own records and other evidence, so it need not be given greater weight | Treating opinion not entitled to controlling weight because inconsistent with record and progress notes |
Key Cases Cited
- Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (standards for Appeals Council review of new, material, chronologically relevant evidence)
- Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780 (11th Cir. 2014) (Appeals Council need not give detailed explanation when it adds evidence and denies review)
- Parks ex rel. D.P. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 783 F.3d 847 (11th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing Epps and addressing adequacy of Appeals Council statement)
- Hyde v. Bowen, 823 F.2d 456 (11th Cir. 1987) (materiality standard for new evidence)
- Caulder v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 872 (11th Cir. 1986) (new evidence must not be merely cumulative)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (treating physician opinion need not be credited if inconsistent with other evidence)
- Washington v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r., 806 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2015) (post‑decision medical opinions can be chronologically relevant)
- Epps v. Harris, 624 F.2d 1267 (5th Cir. 1980) (discussed as contrast where new evidence directly undermined ALJ rationale)