Kahle v. Commissioner of Social Security
845 F. Supp. 2d 1262
M.D. Fla.2012Background
- Plaintiff seeks review of the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits.
- ALJ decision found Plaintiff not disabled after reviewing the record and hearing evidence.
- ALJ gave controlling weight to Dr. Kronberger and great weight to Dr. Barber’s opinion, yet rejected the upper-body limitations portion.
- Claimant alleged error in treating- vs examining-physician weight, RFC, and VE job descriptions.
- ALJ remanded via sentence four is recommended; no treating-physician opinions exist in the record.
- Hearing and medical record show impairments including hypertension, peripheral neuropathy, bipolar disorder, and alcohol history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly rejected part of Dr. Barber’s opinion. | Kahle argues the rejection lacks explicit, adequate reasons. | Commissioner contends the ALJ gave explicit reasons consistent with the record. | Remand warranted for inadequate articulation of rejection. |
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed Dr. Kronberger’s controlling weight against others. | Kahle contends Kronberger’s opinion should not control given other opinions. | Commissioner argues Kronberger’s review is supported by the record. | Court should review for substantial evidence support and articulation. |
| Whether the RFC adequately reflects all functional limitations. | RFC omits limitations found by treating/examining physicians. | ALJ found sufficient evidence to support RFC. | Remand needed to reassess RFC consistency with medical evidence. |
| Whether the vocational evidence and job definitions align with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. | Discrepancies between VE testimony and DOT definitions. | VE testimony considered by the ALJ. | Remand to re-evaluate VE testimony and job descriptions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir.1995) (substantial evidence standard; weight of medical opinions)
- Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580 (11th Cir.1991) (court must view entire record in evaluating disability)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir.2004) (good-cause standard for treating physician opinions)
- Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698 (11th Cir.1988) (treating physician weight; good-cause standard)
- Broughton v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 960 (11th Cir.1985) (examining vs non-examining opinions; weight distinctions)
- Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir.2001) (five-step framework; substantial evidence standard)
- Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086 (11th Cir.1996) (remand when record incomplete or unclear)