Kristy Hunter v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner, 705 F. App'x 936

Hunter applied for SSI in Dec 2011 alleging multiple physical and mental impairments and has no past relevant work; her claim was denied through the ALJ level.
Hunter’s attorney withdrew; she was informed repeatedly of her right to counsel, signed a waiver, requested continuances, and twice failed to appear for scheduled hearings, later asking the ALJ to decide without a hearing because of anxiety.
The ALJ issued an adverse decision on Aug 8, 2014, finding severe impairments but residual functional capacity (RFC) sufficient for work and giving limited weight to an examining psychologist (Dr. Bentley) and great weight to a non-examining consultant (Dr. Estock).
After the ALJ decision, Hunter obtained counsel and submitted new evidence to the Appeals Council: treatment records from July 2014 and an examining psychologist’s report (Dr. Wilson, Dec 2014) asserting severe, long‑standing cognitive/functional limits dating back to July 2008.
The Appeals Council denied review, concluding Dr. Wilson’s opinions were not chronologically relevant because they post‑dated the ALJ’s decision; the district court affirmed. Hunter appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Appeals Council erred by refusing to consider Dr. Wilson’s post‑decision evidence	Dr. Wilson’s exam and statement relate back to the period on or before Aug 8, 2014 (explicitly states limitations back to July 2008); and treatment records show symptoms before the ALJ decision	Evidence is about a later time and thus not chronologically relevant to the ALJ’s decision	Vacated and remanded: Dr. Wilson’s report is new, material, and chronologically relevant; Appeals Council erred in refusing to consider it
Whether Hunter validly waived right to counsel and was prejudiced by proceeding pro se	Waiver was not valid and lack of counsel prejudiced Hunter by leaving evidentiary gaps (e.g., timely treating‑physician statements, cross‑examination)	Hunter was repeatedly informed of right to counsel, signed waiver, was offered help finding counsel, and voluntarily asked the ALJ to proceed	Affirmed: waiver was knowing and voluntary; no showing of prejudice or failure of ALJ’s duty to a pro se litigant

Washington v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 806 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2015) (defines standard for Appeals Council to consider new, material, chronologically relevant evidence and permits post‑decision exams to relate back)
Graham v. Apfel, 129 F.3d 1420 (11th Cir. 1997) (claimant has statutory right to counsel at ALJ hearing; waiver permitted but claimant must show prejudice to establish due process violation)