Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91838
M.D. Fla.2012Background
- Claimant Loida Rosario appeals a SSA denial of disability benefits after an ALJ determined she could perform light work with restrictions.
- Claimant argues the ALJ erred by not stating the weight given to treating physicians’ RFC opinions and by not giving good reasons for rejecting them.
- Treating physicians Sastry (pain management), Martin (neurosurgery), and Greenspan (neurology) offered RFC opinions suggesting significant work limitations or inability to work.
- The ALJ instead assigned some weight to a non-examining state consultant (DeMiranda) and provided three general, vague reasons for discounting the treating opinions.
- Medical evidence shows Claimant underwent spinal cord stimulator trials and implantation with varying pain relief, and later treating notes show some improvement but ongoing complaints.
- The district court reversed and remanded, holding the ALJ failed to state weight and articulate good cause for rejecting the treating opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ err by not stating the weight given to treating RFC opinions? | Rosario contends the ALJ failed to specify weight assigned to Sastry, Martin, Greenspan opinions. | Commissioner argues the opinions were not controlling as they addressed disability and were inconsistent with records and evidence. | Remand required; failure to state weight to treating opinions is reversible error. |
| Did the ALJ provide good cause for discounting treating opinions? | Rosario asserts good cause existed due to inconsistencies with doctors’ own records and the overall record. | Commissioner contends the opinions were inconsistent with the doctors’ examinations and the medical record as a whole. | Remand required; ALJ did not articulate specific, supported good cause for discounting treating opinions. |
| Was the ALJ required to reconcile treating opinions with subsequent treatment notes and objective findings? | Rosario maintains the treating opinions reflect functional limitations not contradicted by the record as a whole. | Commissioner maintains the ALJ’s cited later records show improvements and thus justify discounting opinions. | Remand required; insufficient articulation of how later records conflict with treating opinions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winschel v. Commissioner of Social Security, 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (treating opinions require explicit weight and reasons; absence is reversible error)
- Johnson v. Barnhart, 138 F. App’x 266 (11th Cir. 2005) (non-examining opinions do not establish good cause to reject treating opinions)
- Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1988) (non-controlling weight must be explained with substantial support)
- MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050 (11th Cir. 1986) (failure to articulate weight given to treating opinions is reversible error)
- Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580 (11th Cir. 1991) (good cause standard for discounting treating opinions)
- Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143 (11th Cir. 1991) (ALJ must provide sufficient reasoning when discarding treating opinions)