Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security, 6:15-cv-01125

Claimant Delaizarah Zgraggen Rosario applied for SSI (filed 2/14/2011) alleging disability from July 27, 2008; ALJ denied benefits on 11/29/2013 and Appeals Council adopted ALJ findings on review, resulting in Commissioner’s final denial.
Claimant treated with psychiatrist Dr. Sofia Qadir from July–Dec 2012 for bipolar disorder with psychosis, PTSD/anxiety; treatment notes show fluctuating symptoms and medication management, with at least one note stating "things are better now."
On February 22, 2013, Dr. Qadir completed a psychiatric assessment opining marked limitations in social functioning and concentration, persistence, or pace, and marked work-related restrictions (e.g., inability to complete a normal workday/week without interruptions).
The ALJ set Claimant’s RFC at the sedentary level with limitations to simple job instructions and occasional interaction with others, but did not explicitly state the weight assigned to Dr. Qadir’s opinion and expressed reasons suggesting rejection of that opinion (sporadic treatment, improvement statements, no hospitalizations/institutionalization).
The magistrate judge recommended reversing and remanding because the ALJ failed to articulate with particularity the weight given to the treating psychiatrist’s opinion, frustrating meaningful judicial review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly evaluated and gave adequate reasons for rejecting treating psychiatrist Dr. Qadir’s opinion	ALJ lacked good cause to reject Dr. Qadir; reasons (sporadic treatment, isolated improvement, no hospitalization) do not constitute substantial evidence	Commissioner contends ALJ’s stated reasons support discounting the opinion	Remand recommended: ALJ erred by not stating specific weight and by relying on insufficiently supported reasons; reversal and remand ordered for further proceedings
Whether ALJ properly assessed Claimant’s credibility regarding pain/limitations	Credibility finding depends on proper assessment of medical opinion (Qadir); thus errors require reconsideration of credibility	Credibility determination defended as supported by record and RFC findings	Court did not separately decide credibility because remand on opinion issue makes further credibility analysis unnecessary at this stage

Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir. 1995) (defines substantial evidence standard and requires reviewing the record as a whole)
Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (ALJ determines RFC; court may not reweigh evidence)
Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial weight unless good cause shown; ALJ must state reasons with particularity)
Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir. 1997) (RFC assessment must be based on all relevant evidence)