Raymond Lamar Burgin vs Commissioner of Social Security
420 F. App'x 901
11th Cir.2011Background
- Burgin appeals district court’s denial of disability benefits (DIB) under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and SSI under § 1383(c)(3).
- ALJ found Burgin’s edema, sleep apnea, and morbid obesity non-severe for lack of 12 consecutive months with vocationally-restrictive limitations.
- ALJ proceeded through the sequential evaluation and considered the impairments in combination.
- AC incorporated new evidence and denied review; Burgin challenged weight given to new evidence and the standards applied.
- Record shows Burgin was represented at hearing; medications allegedly causing side effects were not found to affect Burgin’s credibility or disability finding.
- Court affirms Commissioner’s denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sleep apnea, edema, and obesity were properly deemed non-severe | Burgin argues these impairments are severe or cumulatively disabling | ALJ correctly found no 12-month vocationally-restrictive impact | Affirmed; impairments considered in combination later in the process |
| Whether the Appeals Council adequately explained weight given to new evidence | AC failed to show weight given to new evidence or standards | AC incorporated new evidence; no detailed explanation required | Affirmed; no remand warranted for new-evidence weight |
| Whether ALJ properly addressed side effects of Burgin’s medications | ALJ failed to assess medication side effects on work capacity | No evidence of side effects; no need to inquire given representation and record | Affirmed; ALJ not required to delve into side effects without evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (step-two/overall evaluation framework for disability claims)
- Jamison v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 585 (11th Cir.1987) (express requirement to consider combination of impairments)
- Bowen v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 629 (11th Cir.1984) (need for specific, well-articulated findings on impairment combinations)
- Jones v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 941 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir.1991) (clear expression of combination consideration suffices)
- Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726 (11th Cir.1991) (harmless-error approach to social security decisions)
- Ingram v. Comm’r, 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir.2007) (AC may incorporate new evidence; not required to exhaustively explain denial)
- Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir.1997) (treating-source opinions must be given weight unless conclusory)
- Cherry v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 1186 (11th Cir.1985) (ALJ need not inquire into side effects absent evidence)
- Passopulos v. Sullivan, 976 F.2d 642 (11th Cir.1992) (no need to assess side effects without evidence)
- Swindle v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 222 (11th Cir.1990) (evidence of side effects not shown; credibility assessment supports decision)