Robert Bryant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 661 F. App'x 686

Robert Bryant applied for disability insurance benefits alleging knee and back injuries from a workplace fall; he amended his alleged onset date from September 9, 2010 to December 9, 2010.
At the ALJ hearing Bryant testified to severe pain, daily TENS use, multiple nerve blocks, and needing to lie down 2–4 hours daily; he reported limited daily activities and continued working until termination in December 2010.
The ALJ continued the hearing to obtain an orthopedic medical expert (Dr. Allan Levine); Dr. Levine ultimately testified by telephone at the May 29, 2013 supplemental hearing.
Treating physicians offered divergent opinions: Dr. Timberlake opined Bryant was totally disabled (with severe functional limits), while Dr. Wesley Spruill placed only a 75-pound lifting restriction and found Bryant at maximum medical improvement; ALJ gave significant weight to Spruill and little weight to Timberlake.
The ALJ found Bryant could perform a range of light work with sit/stand limitations and non-exertional restrictions; a vocational expert identified other jobs consistent with those limitations, so the ALJ denied benefits; the Appeals Council and the district court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ALJ took medical-expert testimony by telephone and gave inadequate notice	Bryant: telephonic testimony violated SSA regulations and he lacked adequate notice, prejudicing cross-examination	Commissioner: regs did not clearly prohibit phone testimony; Bryant received fax notice (not in record) and any error was harmless	Court: Even if error occurred, no prejudice shown; harmless error — affirm
Weight given to treating physician (Dr. Timberlake)	Bryant: ALJ improperly discounted Timberlake’s opinion; it was consistent with other treating notes (Spruill)	Commissioner: Good cause existed—Timberlake’s opinion contradicted his own treatment notes and other record evidence; ALJ properly credited Spruill	Court: Substantial evidence supports ALJ’s articulation of good cause to discount Timberlake and to afford weight to Spruill — affirm

Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard of review: substantial evidence and de novo review of legal principles)
Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) (definition of substantial evidence and appellate limits)
Hall v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 116 (5th Cir. Unit A Sept. 1981) (agency-rule violation requires prejudice for remand)
Hepp v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 798 (8th Cir. 2008) (telephone testimony can be acceptable; in non-adversarial proceedings phone cross-exam may suffice)
Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (treating physician rule requires controlling weight only if supported and consistent)
Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (good-cause grounds to discount treating opinion)
Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780 (11th Cir. 2014) (ALJ need not cite every record item so long as decision shows consideration of the whole)
Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726 (11th Cir. 1983) (harmless-error doctrine in social security proceedings)
Hunter v. Social Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 808 F.3d 818 (11th Cir. 2015) (courts will not second-guess ALJ’s weighing of treating opinions if ALJ gives specific justification)
Stewart v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 26 F.3d 115 (11th Cir. 1994) (appellate courts decline issues not raised below)