Kenneth David Jacobus v. Commissioner of Social Secur
664 F. App'x 774
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Kenneth Jacobus appealed denial of SSI and DIB for alleged disabilities (Aug 31, 2010–Mar 22, 2013) including diabetes, back pain, liver/kidney disease, vision problems, and obesity-related issues.
- ALJ found Jacobus not disabled; Jacobus challenged credibility findings, the RFC, and reliance on a vocational expert.
- Record contained sporadic treatment notes (Sept 2011–Oct 2012), diabetes sometimes uncontrolled, limited documentation of use of cane or treatment for many asserted impairments, and some treatment records from multiple clinics and two treating physicians.
- ALJ discounted claimant testimony as inconsistent with medical records and Jacobus’s sparse treatment history; ALJ gave less weight to treating physicians’ opinions as inconsistent with their records.
- Jacobus argued the ALJ made factual errors, improperly rejected treating opinions, failed to develop the record (e.g., order tests), and posed an incomplete hypothetical to the vocational expert.
- Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding any factual errors were harmless and substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s credibility, RFC, and vocational findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility | ALJ failed to give adequate reasons; ignored financial/aversion-to-treatment excuses; made factual errors and selectively relied on favorable records | ALJ gave explicit reasons; errors were harmless; claimant did not establish good-cause excuses for lack of treatment | Court: ALJ provided adequate, supported reasons; errors harmless; substantial evidence supports credibility finding |
| RFC / Medical Opinions | ALJ improperly rejected treating physicians (Rendon, Mahmaljy); RFC omitted impairments and need for cane/nebulizer | ALJ showed good cause to discount treating opinions as out of step with their records; record lacked support for cane/nebulizer limitations | Court: ALJ permissibly gave less weight to treating opinions; RFC supported by substantial evidence |
| Duty to Develop / Additional Testing | ALJ should have ordered tests (e.g., nerve conduction) and sought missing records | Burden on claimant to produce evidence; ALJ requested available records; no duty to procure claimant-funded tests | Court: No reversible error; claimant responsible for producing evidence; ALJ’s record development adequate |
| VE Hypothetical | VE testimony unreliable because hypotheticals omitted limitations/errors | VE hypothetical matched ALJ’s RFC, which was supported by record and testimony | Court: No error; VE testimony properly relied upon given valid RFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726 (3d Cir. 1983) (factual errors by ALJ may be harmless if they do not affect the outcome)
- Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780 (11th Cir. 2014) (credibility determinations are for the ALJ and reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) (ALJ must articulate explicit and adequate reasons when discrediting subjective testimony)
- Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2003) (claimant bears burden to produce evidence; poverty may excuse noncompliance with treatment)
- Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir. 1997) (treating physician’s opinion is entitled to substantial weight unless good cause shown)
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (ALJ must give specific reasons when declining to afford controlling weight to a treating physician)
- Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard of review: substantial evidence and proper legal standards)
- Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2009) (issues insufficiently argued may be deemed abandoned)
- Henry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 802 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must consider claimant’s explanations for failure to seek treatment before drawing adverse inferences)