Joyce Hargress v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
874 F.3d 1284
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Joyce Hargress applied for disability insurance benefits and SSI, alleging disability from January 21, 2013 due to diabetes, fatigue, anxiety, back and hip pain; ALJ held a hearing on August 12, 2014 and issued an unfavorable decision on February 24, 2015.
- ALJ found Hargress had severe impairments (morbid obesity, diabetes, hypertension, left hip/leg osteoarthritis, lumbar disc bulges) but did not meet a Listing and retained the RFC to perform a full range of sedentary, unskilled work.
- The ALJ discounted treating physician Dr. Ochuko Odjegba’s restrictive Physical Capacities Form as inconsistent with his treatment notes and the overall record (e.g., doctors described mostly mild musculoskeletal findings, improvements with medication/therapy, and no orders for prolonged bedrest).
- At step five the ALJ relied on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the grids) to find Hargress not disabled given her RFC, age (40), education, and lack of transferable skills, so no vocational expert was used.
- Hargress submitted post-decision medical records to the Appeals Council (March–Oct 2015); the Appeals Council declined review, finding those records related to a later time and not chronologically relevant to the period on or before February 24, 2015.
- Hargress appealed, arguing (1) ALJ improperly discounted the treating opinion, (2) step-five finding lacked substantial evidence, (3) ALJ failed to apply SSR 16-3p in symptom evaluation, and (4) Appeals Council improperly refused to consider the new evidence. The district court affirmed; the panel likewise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to treating physician opinion | ALJ erred in assigning little weight to Dr. Odjegba’s restrictive opinion | ALJ had good cause: opinion contradicted doctor’s own notes and the record | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports discounting the opinion (inconsistency/good cause) |
| RFC / Step 5 determination | RFC and step-five denial not supported by substantial evidence | Record shows mild findings, improvement with treatment, normal function supports sedentary RFC and use of grids | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports RFC and reliance on vocational grids |
| Application of SSR 16-3p in symptom evaluation | ALJ should have applied SSR 16-3p (eliminated "credibility" language) | SSR 16-3p is prospective (effective March 28, 2016) and not retroactive; ALJ applied the two-step symptom analysis | Affirmed — SSR 16-3p not retroactive; even if applied, ALJ’s language and analysis comport with SSR 16-3p |
| Appeals Council refusal to consider post-decision records | Appeals Council erred by not considering March–Oct 2015 records | Records concern a later time and are not chronologically relevant to period on or before ALJ decision | Affirmed — new records not chronologically relevant; Appeals Council permissibly declined to consider them |
Key Cases Cited
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (good-cause standard to discount treating-physician opinion)
- Washington v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 806 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2015) (appeals-council review of post-decision evidence can be chronologically relevant in special circumstances)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (when grids may be used without a vocational expert)
- Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (appeals-council consideration of additional evidence)
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard of review — substantial evidence)
- Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir. 1997) (substantial-evidence standards)
- Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780 (11th Cir. 2014) (Appeals Council need not address each new record individually)
- Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (1988) (administrative rules generally not applied retroactively)
- Sierra Club v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 430 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (declining retroactive application where rule specifies effective date)