Mark C. Luterman v. Commissioner of Social Security
518 F. App'x 683
11th Cir.2013Background
- Luterman applied for DIB and SSI in 2007 alleging disability due to neck/shoulder pain, degenerative disc disease, bipolar disorder with psychotic features, and intermittent explosive disorder; applications denied and denied again after an ALJ hearing; magistrate judge affirmed the Commissioner's decision; Luterman appeals.
- Medical record evidence includes degenerative disc disease, left shoulder tendinitis, knee effusion, diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, but the mental impairments are central to the appeal.
- Lakeside Behavioral Healthcare treated Luterman starting April 2007; nurse practitioner Yankovic diagnosed bipolar I disorder with psychotic features and intermittent explosive disorder, with notes on poor memory, concentration, insight, and judgment and GAF scores usually 40–50 indicating serious impairment.
- Dr. Carter (Dec. 2007) found mild to moderate limitations in daily living and social functioning; Dr. Coleman (June 2008) found moderate limitations and completed a mental RFC; Dr. Fleischmann (May 2008) noted noncompliance and various behavioral issues; subsequent notes showed fluctuating treatment and stability.
- ALJ determined Luterman had the RFC to perform light, unskilled work with no public interaction, few coworkers, indirect supervision, and need to alternate sitting/standing every 60 minutes and not raise the left arm; vocational expert identified some suitable jobs; Appeals Council denied review; magistrate affirmed the ALJ’s decision.
- The five-step framework was used; Luterman challenged the inclusion of Coleman’s one-step task/nonproduction limitations and the corresponding vocational evidence; the court affirmed the decision as based on substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFC inclusion of Coleman limits | Luterman argues Coleman’s one-step and nonproduction limits should be in the RFC | ALJ found Coleman’s additional limits not supported by record | RFC properly excludes Coleman limits; substantial evidence supports the ALJ's basis |
| Hypothetical reflects Luterman’s impairments | Questions to VE omitted Coleman’s extra limits | ALJ’s hypothetical matched record-supported limitations | VE testimony substantial evidence; not disabled |
Key Cases Cited
- Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (nonexertional limits require vocational evidence for step five)
- Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (do not include unsupported medical findings in hypotheticals)
- Ingram v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (limits need not include every symptom in hypotheticals)
- Wolfe v. Chater, 86 F.3d 1072 (11th Cir. 1996) (independent vocational evidence needed for nonexertional limits)
- Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278 (11th Cir. 1987) (weighting of medical opinions guided by traditional factors)