Mindy Ball v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
714 F. App'x 991
11th Cir.2018Background
- Mindy Ball applied for disability, disability insurance benefits, and SSI in September 2010; ALJ initially found several spinal impairments severe but deemed her depression non-severe.
- The Appeals Council vacated and remanded, instructing the ALJ to give additional consideration to consultative psychologist Dr. Karl Whitlock’s opinion regarding depression.
- On remand the ALJ held a supplemental hearing, again concluded Ball’s depression was non-severe, found severe physical impairments, assessed a less-than-full-range medium RFC, and determined Ball could perform past relevant work or other work in the national economy.
- The Appeals Council denied review; the district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision; Ball appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviews the ALJ’s factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo; the court considered whether any error in classifying depression as non-severe was harmless and whether the ALJ adequately considered all impairments in the RFC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ erred at step two by finding depression non‑severe | Ball: ALJ should have found depression severe based on Dr. Whitlock’s opinion | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly gave limited weight to one-time examiner and found other severe impairments, so step two satisfied | No reversible error; any step-two error was harmless because other severe impairments allowed proceeding to step three |
| Whether any step-two error affected the RFC/step-four analysis | Ball: Misclassification affected how symptoms were weighed in RFC | Commissioner: ALJ considered all symptoms, records, and opinions (including Whitlock) when assessing RFC | Held against Ball; ALJ considered combined impairments in RFC determination |
| Weight given to Dr. Whitlock (consultative examiner) | Ball: ALJ’s partial reliance supports severity of depression | Commissioner: Whitlock was a non‑treating one-time examiner; his opinion may be given minimal weight | ALJ acted within discretion to assign limited weight to one-time examiner’s opinion |
| Remand instructions and procedural claims (need for medical expert, hypotheticals, pain standard) | Ball: Appeals Council required further expert testimony and alleged procedural errors on remand | Commissioner: No record evidence supporting those claims; ALJ complied with remand and proper procedures | Court found no record support for Ball’s procedural claims and rejected them |
Key Cases Cited
- Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for ALJ decisions and Appeals Council denials)
- Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585 (11th Cir. 1987) (any severe impairment satisfies step two filter)
- Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726 (11th Cir. 1983) (harmless error doctrine when error does not affect the ultimate determination)
- Walker v. Bowen, 826 F.2d 996 (11th Cir. 1987) (requirement to articulate effect of combined impairments in RFC)
- McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617 (11th Cir. 1987) (opinions of one-time examiners are not entitled to treating-physician deference)