Ronnie Lee Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security
677 F. App'x 529
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ronnie Lee Brown appealed the ALJ’s denial of SSI and DIB after the Appeals Council declined review.
- Central disputed factual issue: whether Brown required continuous supplemental oxygen and whether the ALJ accounted for that need in assessing his RFC.
- Medical record showed intermittent oxygen prescriptions and two hospital discharges with instructions to use home oxygen, but other records did not show ongoing home oxygen needs or specify the amount/duration required.
- ALJ found Brown’s testimony about continuous oxygen use not entirely credible, citing inconsistencies, medical noncompliance, and evidence of daily activities (e.g., cutting grass) inconsistent with need for continuous oxygen.
- ALJ concluded Brown did not require continuous supplemental oxygen and incorporated all supported impairments into the RFC; a vocational expert then testified Brown could perform work available in the national economy.
- Brown argued the ALJ failed to develop the record regarding oxygen needs; the court held the ALJ adequately developed the record through questioning and review of medical records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by not accounting for continuous supplemental oxygen in RFC | Brown: ALJ failed to account for his need for continuous oxygen in the RFC | Commissioner/ALJ: ALJ considered oxygen need but found continuous use not medically necessary based on record and credibility findings | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports ALJ’s finding that continuous oxygen was not required |
| Credibility of Brown’s testimony about oxygen need | Brown: His testimony about needing continuous oxygen should be credited | ALJ: Testimony inconsistent with medical records, noncompliance, and daily activities; credibility properly discounted | Affirmed — ALJ gave specific, supported reasons for adverse credibility finding |
| Whether vocational expert testimony was improperly based on an incomplete RFC | Brown: VE hypotheticals omitted oxygen requirement, so testimony unreliable | ALJ: Hypotheticals matched RFC, which included all proven impairments | Affirmed — VE testimony constituted substantial evidence because RFC included all supported impairments |
| Whether ALJ failed to develop a full and fair record on oxygen need | Brown: If record insufficient, ALJ should have developed evidence further | ALJ: Court found ALJ elicited testimony about oxygen, noted portable oxygen at hearing, and reviewed medical records; claimant failed to identify additional available evidence | Affirmed — ALJ fulfilled duty to develop record |
Key Cases Cited
- Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (discussing review of ALJ decision when Appeals Council denies review)
- Lewis v. Barnhart, 285 F.3d 1329 (standard of review for Commissioner’s factual findings)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (VE testimony must be based on hypothetical including all claimant’s impairments)
- Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (credibility findings with substantial support will not be disturbed)
- Welch v. Bowen, 854 F.2d 436 (ALJ’s duty to develop a full and fair record)
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (claimant bears heavy burden to show disability and inability to perform past work)
- Jackson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 601 F.3d 1268 (argument raised first in reply brief need not be considered)