Mullins v. Commissioner of Social Security, 8:20-cv-01323

Plaintiff Cathleen Mullins applied for disability insurance benefits alleging disability beginning July 26, 2016; her application was denied and ALJ Laureen Penn found her not disabled after a June 26, 2019 hearing.
ALJ found multiple severe impairments (including myasthenia gravis, lumbar disorders, diabetes, obesity, COPD/asthma, neuropathy, psoriatic arthritis) and assigned an RFC for light work with limits: stand/walk 4 hours, sit 6 hours, occasional posturals, avoid concentrated pulmonary irritants, and no moderate exposure to hazards.
ALJ concluded Mullins could perform her past work as a case manager (as generally performed) and alternatively other sedentary jobs identified by a vocational expert (VE).
Mullins submitted a post‑hearing memorandum and rebuttal vocational evidence after the hearing; the ALJ refused to keep the record open and did not consider that submission.
The VE classified Mullins’s past work under DOT 195.107‑030 (Social Worker, Medical), but the court found that classification did not match Mullins’s actual duties and that the ALJ failed to resolve the apparent VE–DOT conflict.
Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings limited to reconsidering Mullins’s past relevant work, any related vocational findings, and the RFC (including reconsideration of migraine‑related limitations).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ALJ refused to consider post‑hearing memorandum and rebuttal vocational evidence	Mullins: ALJ should have kept record open or at least addressed post‑hearing objections; failure prevents meaningful review	Commissioner: ALJ not required to consider post‑hearing brief; HALLEX/SSR do not create enforceable right here; no prejudice shown	Court: Error as to past‑work classification and unresolved VE–DOT issue; remand required to reconsider past work and vocational findings
Step‑two classification of migraine headaches as non‑severe and omission of migraine limits from RFC	Mullins: Migraines are a severe impairment and ALJ erred by not including related limitations in RFC	Commissioner: Other severe impairments were found and RFC considered all limitations; any error at step two was harmless	Court: Any step‑two placement error was harmless because ALJ considered migraine effects (limited to frequent near/far acuity) but directed reconsideration of migraine limitations on remand
Credibility/subjective symptom evaluation and failure to discuss long work history	Mullins: ALJ failed to weigh her 39+ years of strong work history in assessing credibility	Commissioner: ALJ’s credibility findings are supported by substantial evidence	Court: ALJ reviewed Mullins’s work history in the record; no reversible error on this point

Crawford v. Comm'r, 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (substantial evidence standard and review constraints)
Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (district court may not reweigh evidence; consider whole record)
Schink v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2019) (ALJ must consider all impairments, severe and non‑severe, when assessing RFC)
Washington v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 906 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2018) (ALJ has affirmative duty to identify and resolve VE–DOT conflicts)
Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard for evaluating subjective pain testimony)
Keeton v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 1994) (legal conclusions reviewed de novo; failure to apply correct law mandates reversal)
Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (step‑five methods: grid rules or vocational expert testimony)
McCruter v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 1544 (11th Cir. 1986) (severity measured by effect on ability to work, not medical deviation)
Ball v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., [citation="714 F. App'x 991"] (11th Cir. 2018) (finding any one severe impairment suffices to proceed past step two)
Ross v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., [citation="794 F. App'x 858"] (11th Cir. 2019) (factors ALJ should consider in assessing subjective symptoms)