Pitaluga v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:14-cv-24255
S.D. Fla.Mar 31, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Ofelia Pitaluga sought review of the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits after an ALJ found her not disabled; the Magistrate Judge recommended affirming the ALJ, and Pitaluga objected.
- Primary contested record items: consultative examiner reports by Drs. Elias Fernandez and Mark La Porta, and treating source opinions from Drs. Nelson Hernandez and Jose Gonzalez.
- ALJ discounted aspects of Pitaluga’s testimony (credibility) citing inconsistencies about driving, English proficiency, reasons for leaving work, and receipt of public/family assistance.
- The Commissioner conceded the ALJ did not explicitly state the weight given to the consultative examiners’ opinions but argued any error was harmless.
- The district court reviewed de novo, found error in the ALJ’s failure to articulate the weight given the consultative opinions and that the credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given consultative examiners’ opinions (Drs. Fernandez, La Porta) | ALJ failed to state the weight accorded; error prejudicial | Commissioner conceded lack of articulation but argued error harmless because RFC would stand | Court: Remand — ALJ must state with particularity the weight given these opinions |
| Weight given treating physicians’ opinions (Drs. Gonzalez, Hernandez) | ALJ gave inadequate weight and failed to articulate reasons | Commissioner/ALJ argued she gave less than controlling weight for good cause and explained reasons | Court: ALJ articulated good cause; decision to discount treating opinions supported by substantial evidence (objection overruled) |
| Credibility of Pitaluga’s symptom testimony | ALJ improperly discredited testimony based on collateral inconsistencies (English, driving, motive) rather than §404.1529(c) factors and medical record | ALJ argued multiple record inconsistencies supported discounting credibility | Court: Credibility determination not supported — ALJ relied on tangential matters and failed to consider medical condition as a whole; remand required |
| RFC assessment | RFC not supported because it relied on flawed credibility and unarticulated consultative opinions | Commissioner maintained RFC supported by record and Magistrate Judge’s adoption | Court: Did not decide RFC on merits because remand on other errors could change RFC; directed ALJ to reevaluate RFC on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must state clear reasons for rejecting portions of medical opinions; cannot affirm on hypothetical rationales)
- Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278 (11th Cir. 1987) (ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to medical opinions)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (standards for giving treating physician’s opinion substantial or controlling weight and what constitutes good cause to discount)
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) (ALJ must give explicit and adequate reasons when discrediting subjective pain testimony)
- Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (administrative findings may be reversed only when the record compels reversal)
- McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1027 (11th Cir. 1986) (failure to apply correct legal standards or provide sufficient basis for review is grounds for reversal)