Sullivan v. Commissioner of Social Security, 5:15-cv-00056

Plaintiff Mark Stephen Sullivan applied for disability insurance benefits, alleging onset February 13, 2006; his date last insured was December 31, 2011.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found severe impairments including obesity, diabetes with sensorimotor polyneuropathy, prior non-dominant CVA, cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease, and depressive disorder, but concluded Plaintiff did not meet a listing.
ALJ assessed an RFC for a limited range of sedentary work with physical and minimal mental restrictions (simple, routine, repetitive tasks; occasional public interaction).
ALJ gave little weight to treating neurologist Dr. Singh’s opinions that Plaintiff was totally disabled, citing treatment notes showing 5/5 motor strength, normal tone/coordination, and other records showing functionality and ability to drive/work.
Plaintiff submitted additional vocational evaluator evidence to the Appeals Council (Dr. Pinder), claiming a conflict between the VE’s job conclusions and the DOT given Plaintiff’s limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace; Appeals Council considered but denied review.
District Court reversed and remanded: it upheld the ALJ’s treatment-of-opinion analysis as supported by substantial evidence, but found remand required because the VE testimony and ALJ’s step-five findings did not account for the ALJ’s step-two finding of moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, and pace.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did ALJ err in weighing treating physician Dr. Singh’s opinions?	Sullivan: ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Singh, "cherry-picking" and failing to give controlling weight to treating opinion of disability.	Commissioner: Dr. Singh’s disability opinion is a non‑medical issue reserved to the Commissioner, lacks objective support, and ALJ gave proper reasons for little weight.	Court: No reversible error; ALJ articulated good cause and substantial evidence supports giving Dr. Singh’s disability opinion little weight, despite one post‑DLI record cited by ALJ.
Did Appeals Council err by denying review of new vocational evidence (Dr. Pinder)?	Sullivan: Dr. Pinder showed conflict between VE jobs (Reasoning Levels 2–3) and ALJ’s RFC/limitations (equated to Reasoning Level 1) and noted moderate limitations in concentration/pace not accounted for—warranting remand.	Commissioner: No conflict; unskilled jobs cited are consistent with simple, routine, repetitive work; Dr. Pinder’s views do not require remand.	Court: Remand required. The ALJ’s hypothetical and VE testimony did not account for the ALJ’s own finding of moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, or pace; VE testimony therefore cannot support step five.

Crawford v. Comm’r, 363 F.3d 1155 (Elec. Cir.) (standard that substantial evidence is more than a scintilla)
Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (Elec. Cir.) (substantial evidence standard and scope of review)
Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520 (Elec. Cir.) (review limits and substantial evidence rule)
Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (Elec. Cir.) (consideration of whole record and unfavorable evidence)
Keeton v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064 (Elec. Cir.) (court may reverse for failure to apply correct law)
Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (Elec. Cir.) (five‑step sequential evaluation explained)
Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (Elec. Cir.) (use of VE and Medical‑Vocational Guidelines)
Allen v. Sullivan, 880 F.2d 1200 (Elec. Cir.) (ALJ’s duty to develop full and fair record re: vocational opportunities)
Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (Elec. Cir.) (VE testimony inadequate when hypothetical omits claimant’s moderate limitation in concentration/pace)
Mitchell v. Comm’r, 771 F.3d 780 (Elec. Cir.) (ALJ need not address every piece of evidence if decision shows consideration of record as a whole)
Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253 (Elec. Cir.) (new evidence to Appeals Council considered under Sentence Four analysis)
Rosario v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 877 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (M.D. Fla.) (weighing medical opinions in steps four and five)