Norton v. Commissioner of Social Security
5:16-cv-00130
M.D. Fla.Mar 3, 2017Background
- Norton applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI alleging disability beginning July 31, 2002; ALJ denied benefits on April 15, 2014, and the Appeals Council later denied review after considering additional evidence.
- ALJ found severe impairments including right knee osteoarthritis, left-thumb osteoarthritis (post-arthroplasty), degenerative spine disease, hypertension, obesity, and bipolar/affective mood disorder.
- RFC: Norton retained capacity for light work with restrictions (no ladders/unprotected heights, no heavy machinery, occasional bending/crouching/kneeling/stooping, no squatting/crawling; limited to simple tasks in low-stress, non-production-line environments).
- ALJ concluded Norton could not perform past relevant work but could perform jobs existing in significant numbers (ticket seller, cashier, housekeeper), so not disabled.
- On appeal Norton argued (1) ALJ omitted manipulative limitations for the left thumb, (2) ALJ failed to state weight given to state consultant Dr. Coleman, and (3) Appeals Council erred by refusing to remand based on post-decision MRI and a psychiatrist’s retrospective opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by omitting manipulative (hand/thumb) limits from RFC | Norton: thumb osteoarthritis and post-arthroplasty impair his manipulative ability and RFC should include such limits | ALJ considered thumb condition, post-op therapy showed improvement, record lacks treating opinion finding disabling manipulative limits | Court: No reversible error—substantial evidence supports RFC; record and Dr. Coleman’s notes did not establish definite functional manipulative limitation |
| Whether ALJ erred in not stating the weight given to state-agency physician Dr. Coleman | Norton: Winschel requires ALJ to explain weighing of medical opinions; Dr. Coleman indicated possible left-thumb limitation | Commissioner: Dr. Coleman’s narrative undermines the checkbox indications and does not establish a functional restriction; any failure to state weight was harmless | Court: No remand needed; Dr. Coleman’s opinion did not establish additional limitations and any weight error was harmless |
| Whether Appeals Council erred by refusing to consider May 2014 MRI as chronologically relevant | Norton: MRI findings post-date ALJ but show degenerative changes that preexisted and could alter outcome | Commissioner: MRI taken after ALJ decision and is cumulative of pre-decision imaging; no medical opinion links MRI back to the disability period | Court: Appeals Council did not err—MRI either not chronologically relevant or cumulative and would not likely change outcome |
| Whether Appeals Council erred by rejecting retrospective psychiatric opinion of Dr. Cerra-Fernandez | Norton: Treating psychiatrist’s June 2015 opinion indicates severe limitations dating back to 2010 | Commissioner: Opinion is post-decision, unexplained as to retrospective basis, and conflicts with contemporaneous records and treating notes | Court: Appeals Council properly rejected the opinion as not chronologically relevant or persuasive and inconsistent with pre-decision evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2003) (claimant bears burden to produce evidence of disability)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must consider and explain weight given to medical opinions)
- Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (Appeals Council must consider new, material, chronologically relevant evidence)
- Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780 (11th Cir. 2014) (Appeals Council need not explain in detail why each piece of new evidence does not change ALJ decision)
- Washington v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 806 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2015) (post-decision medical evidence may be chronologically relevant if tied to pre-decision records)