Robbie McClurkin v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
625 F. App'x 960
11th Cir.2015Background
- Claimant Robbie McClurkin (IQ 71, ninth-grade education, prior convenience-store clerk) applied in 2008 for disability insurance benefits and SSI for depression, anxiety, shoulder pain, and degenerative disc disease.
- ALJ denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed the ALJ, and McClurkin appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
- Medical record included conflicting medical opinions: two physicians whose opinions the ALJ expressly credited and a non-treating physician, Dr. Jane Teschner, whose physical capacities form conflicted with those credited opinions.
- The ALJ did not state the weight assigned to Dr. Teschner’s opinion or explain why it was discounted; the ALJ did discuss and give reasons for discounting consultative psychologist Dr. David R. Wilson’s opinion.
- Commissioner conceded the ALJ did not explicitly state the weight given to Dr. Teschner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ adequately stated the weight given to a non-treating physician’s opinion (Dr. Teschner) | McClurkin: ALJ failed to state with particularity the weight assigned to Dr. Teschner and reasons for discounting her report | Commissioner: ALJ implicitly rejected Teschner in favor of more credible evidence; no need to cite every piece of evidence | Vacated and remanded — ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to Teschner and explain reasons for discounting under Winschel standard |
| Whether Winschel’s explanation requirement applies only to treating physicians | McClurkin: Winschel requires particularized explanation regardless of treating status | Commissioner: argued non-treating status lessens explanation requirement | Court: Winschel applies to both treating and non-treating medical opinions; explanation requirement is not limited to treating physicians |
| Whether ALJ’s broader discussion of record can substitute for specific weight assignment | McClurkin: specific articulation required for medical opinions | Commissioner: Dyer allows omission of explicit reference to every piece of evidence if overall decision considers the record | Court: Winschel (a later case) controls for medical opinions; Dyer does not excuse failure to articulate weight for medical opinions |
| Appropriateness of discounting Dr. Wilson because of attorney referral | McClurkin: ALJ erred in discrediting Wilson for attorney referral | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly discounted Wilson for that reason | Court: Did not decide — issue left unaddressed because remand granted on Teschner error |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing legal principles in Social Security appeals)
- Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (review of ALJ decision as Commissioner’s final decision when Appeals Council denies review)
- Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) (ALJ need not refer to every piece of evidence when decision as a whole shows consideration)
- Winschel v. Commissioner of Social Security, 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to medical opinions and reasons for discounting them)