Joseph W. Carpenter v. Commissioner of Social Security, 614 F. App'x 482

Carpenter applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits alleging disabling lumbar disc herniations (L4-5, L5-S1) from a 2001 work injury and mental symptoms (anxiety, depression, memory loss).
Administrative proceedings: initial denials; ALJ hearing in Oct. 2010; ALJ found degenerative disc disease and generalized anxiety disorder but concluded claimant did not meet Listing 1.04(A), assessed a light, routine RFC, and relied on a vocational expert to deny benefits.
Post–medical consultant evidence included a Dec. 2009 EMG showing only mild chronic motor fiber loss without active denervation; prior MRIs showed herniations but no nerve root impingement.
Treating physician Dr. Kochno issued a May 2009 opinion imposing severe work restrictions (e.g., lying down 4–5 hours/day); ALJ gave that opinion limited weight as inconsistent with treatment notes and other record evidence.
District court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation affirming the ALJ; Carpenter appealed raising three principal errors (no updated medical expert, improper rejection of treating physician opinion, incomplete vocational hypothetical).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ had to obtain updated medical expert under SSR 96-6p after new EMG	SSR 96-6p required updated expert because new EMG post-dated state consultant and might show equivalence to a Listing	SSR 96-6p requires an updated opinion only if ALJ thinks the new evidence may change the prior non-equivalence finding; here it would not	ALJ not required to obtain updated opinion; substantial evidence supports that EMG would not change Listing analysis
Whether ALJ erred in discounting treating physician Dr. Kochno’s opinion	Kochno’s opinion should receive substantial weight; ALJ failed to show good cause for rejecting it	ALJ articulated good cause: Kochno’s own notes and other treatment records do not support extreme limitations; opinion inconsistent with activities and gaps in treatment	ALJ permissibly gave limited weight to Kochno’s opinion; substantial evidence supports that conclusion
Whether ALJ’s hypothetical to vocational expert omitted claimant’s limitations	Hypothetical should have included Kochno’s rest requirement and the ALJ’s found moderate limitations in concentration/persistence/pace	Kochno’s limits were unsupported so need not be included; limiting to simple, routine, repetitive tasks adequately captures moderate pace/concentration limits	Hypothetical was adequate; vocational testimony based on it supported denial of benefits

Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard of review and claimant’s burden)
Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (vocational hypothetical need only include supported limitations; discussion of sequential evaluation)
Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (ALJ need not include unsupported limitations in hypothetical)
Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir. 1990) (substantial-evidence affirmation rule)
Ambers v. Heckler, 736 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir. 1984) (Listing step rules)
Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 1999) (burden shifting at step five and VE testimony)
Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580 (11th Cir. 1991) (treating physician rule)
Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (good-cause grounds for discounting treating opinion)
Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (claimant must show meeting all criteria of a Listing)