Racel v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:20-cv-00795
| M.D. Fla. | Feb 23, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Robert Leroy Racel, Jr. applied for SSI (protective date April 30, 2016) alleging bipolar disorder, PTSD, anxiety, seizures, insomnia, agoraphobia, and emphysema; application denied initially and on reconsideration.
- ALJ held a hearing (June 4, 2019) and issued a decision (Aug. 15, 2019) finding Plaintiff not disabled and adopting an RFC for unskilled work with multiple nonexertional limits (no ladders, no hazards, avoid pulmonary irritants, simple routine tasks, limited social contact, static environment, no fast-paced quotas).
- Consultative examiner Dr. Darrin J. Kirkendall examined Plaintiff (June 27, 2019) and opined marked limitations in dealing with stress, interacting with public/supervisors/co-workers, responding to routine changes, and noted medication-related cognitive slowing and attention/concentration problems.
- ALJ assigned only partial/limited weight to Dr. Kirkendall’s report, citing unspecified "objective findings" supporting unskilled work and that Plaintiff was "stable on his medications." The ALJ incorporated some functional restrictions into the RFC but rejected marked limitations.
- The district court found the ALJ erred in discounting Dr. Kirkendall’s opinions because the ALJ did not identify the objective findings she relied on, failed adequately to address the episodic nature of bipolar disorder and medication-related cognitive effects, and did not reconcile those reasons with the record; the court reversed and remanded for re-evaluation of the consultative opinion and reconsideration of step three/listings and other arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ improperly discounted consultative psychologist Dr. Kirkendall’s opinion | Racel: ALJ erred in rejecting Kirkendall’s marked limitations; report aligns with treating records and could show meeting Listing 12.04 or 12.06 | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly found Kirkendall’s opinion inconsistent with the record and supported unskilled work | Court: ALJ erred; failed to identify the objective findings relied on and did not adequately address medication-related cognitive effects—remand required to re-evaluate the opinion |
| Whether ALJ properly relied on Plaintiff’s "stability on medications" to reject marked limitations | Racel: Stability does not negate Listing-level or consultative findings, especially for episodic bipolar disorder; medication cognitive effects unaddressed | Commissioner: Stability on meds supports lesser limitations | Court: Medication stability alone insufficient to discount the consultative opinion; ALJ did not address the examiner’s specific observation about medication-related cognitive slowing—erroneous evaluation |
| Whether other claimed errors (application of SSRs re: pace/production; hypothetical to VE) require review | Racel: ALJ failed to apply SSR 85-15/85-16 and gave an inadequate hypothetical to the VE | Commissioner: ALJ’s RFC and VE reliance were adequate | Held: Court did not reach these issues because remand on the consultative-opinion error could affect them; left for ALJ to reassess on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Simon v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 7 F.4th 1094 (11th Cir. 2021) (bipolar disorder is episodic; ALJ may not rely on isolated "good" snapshots to reject medical findings)
- Schink v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2019) (examining opinions generally entitled to more weight than non-examining; treating/examining hierarchy)
- Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to medical opinions and reasons)
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) (to meet a Listing, claimant must show diagnostic and specific criteria and duration)
- Jackson v. Bowen, 801 F.2d 1291 (11th Cir. 1986) (court may decline to address issues likely to be reconsidered on remand)
- Demenech v. Sec'y of HHS, 913 F.2d 882 (11th Cir. 1990) (same—certain arguments need not be addressed if remand is required on other grounds)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (clarifying the substantial-evidence standard)