Joyce Hargress v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
883 F.3d 1302
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- Hargress applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability since Jan 21, 2013 due to diabetes, fatigue, anxiety, and musculoskeletal pain; ALJ held a hearing Aug 12, 2014 and denied benefits on Feb 24, 2015.
- ALJ found severe impairments (morbid obesity, diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis of left hip/leg, lumbar disc bulges) but no listed impairment or combination equaling a listing.
- ALJ assigned RFC: full range of sedentary, unskilled work (limited for musculoskeletal pain and to avoid anxiety triggers) and concluded vocational grids mandated “not disabled.”
- ALJ gave little weight to a treating physician’s (Dr. Odjegba) 2015 Physical Capacities Form (very restrictive limits) as inconsistent with his own records and the overall medical record.
- Hargress submitted additional records to the Appeals Council (including a 2015 Physical Capacities Form from Dr. Teschner); the Council declined review, finding the new records related to a later time and not chronologically relevant to the ALJ’s Feb 24, 2015 decision.
- Eleventh Circuit affirmed district court: ALJ had good cause to discount treating opinion, RFC was supported by substantial evidence, SSR 16-3p did not apply retroactively, and the Appeals Council properly declined to consider the post-decision evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight to treating physician opinion | ALJ improperly gave little weight to Dr. Odjegba’s Physical Capacities Form | ALJ permissibly discounted it as inconsistent with Dr. Odjegba’s own notes and the record | Affirmed — ALJ had good cause to discount the opinion (inconsistency with treatment notes/record) |
| RFC / Step 5 finding without vocational expert | RFC did not capture true limitations; step 5 finding unsupported | RFC to full range of sedentary, unskilled work was supported; grids applicable so VE not required | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports RFC and reliance on the vocational grids |
| Application of SSR 16-3p (symptom evaluation) | ALJ failed to apply SSR 16-3p in evaluating symptom testimony | SSR 16-3p is not retroactive to decisions before its effective date; even if applied, ALJ’s reasoning comports with it | Affirmed — SSR 16-3p not retroactive; no reversible error in ALJ’s symptom analysis |
| Appeals Council consideration of post-decision evidence | Appeals Council erred by not considering Dr. Teschner/Sparks records and capacities form | Records were not chronologically relevant and, in any event, not material | Affirmed — Council properly found evidence related to a later time and not likely to change the result |
Key Cases Cited
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir.) (ALJ may discount treating opinion for good cause such as inconsistency with records)
- Washington v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 806 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir.) (post-decision medical evidence may be chronologically relevant in limited circumstances where doctor considered prior period and records)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir.) (limits on when an ALJ may rely exclusively on the vocational grids instead of a vocational expert)
- Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir.) (Appeals Council must consider new, material, chronologically relevant evidence)
- Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (administrative rules are generally not applied retroactively)