448 F. App'x 952
11th Cir.2011Background
- Lee appeals district court’s affirmation of SSA denial of DIB.
- ALJ’s hypothetical to vocational expert allegedly failed to account for grip impairment.
- ALJ found Lee had unlimited grip/movement despite burn-related injury.
- Record evidence includes 2005 elbow/wrist/finger ROM findings and 2007 observations of spontaneous arm movement.
- ALJ did not include grip limitation in the hypothetical because he found no limitation in the record.
- Court reviews SSA decisions de novo for law and uses substantial evidence standard for facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ properly include impairments in the VE hypothetical? | Lee | Lee | No error; hypothetical omitted unfounded grip limitation. |
| Was the ALJ’s grip finding supported by substantial evidence? | Lee is limited by grip impairment | Record shows unlimited grip | ALJ’s unlimited-grip finding supported by record. |
| Did the ALJ meet step-five burden with adequate VE testimony or guidelines? | Lee argues against limitation omission | Burden shifts to SSA at step five; VE can provide evidence | SSA satisfied burden via VE testimony per law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (review is de novo for legal conclusions; substantial evidence standard for facts)
- Miles v. Chater, 84 F.3d 1397 (11th Cir. 1996) (substantial evidence requires evidence reasonable to support the decision)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (step-five framework and use of guidelines or VE)
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) (VE testimony must reflect all impairments in hypothetical)
- Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (ALJ not required to include findings unsupported by evidence)