Susan H. Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security
680 F. App'x 822
11th Cir.2017Background
- Susan Brown applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits; an ALJ denied benefits and the Appeals Council declined review, so the ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner’s final decision.
- ALJ found Brown had severe impairments including fibromyalgia and considered other diagnoses (IBS, GERD) but concluded her RFC allowed other work.
- Treating physicians (multiple providers) documented symptoms, diagnoses, and conservative treatments; none imposed work-preclusive restrictions.
- ALJ gave substantial weight to a non-treating physician (Dr. Bancks) whose RFC matched the ALJ’s finding.
- ALJ partially discounted Brown’s subjective symptom testimony, noting mostly normal objective findings, conservative treatment success, and reported functional activities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to treating physicians’ opinions | Brown: ALJ failed to specify weight assigned to treating physicians and therefore erred. | Commissioner: ALJ considered the treating records and any failure to specify weight was harmless because decision reflects consideration of those opinions. | Affirmed — omission harmless where ALJ discussed records and no treating physician gave specific conflicting limitations. |
| Development of record and credibility of symptom testimony (including med side effects) | Brown: ALJ failed to fully develop record and improperly discredited complaints and medication side effects. | Commissioner: ALJ considered side effects and symptom factors under regs; record did not show significant side-effect limitations and claimant bears burden to produce evidence. | Affirmed — ALJ adequately considered side effects and gave clear, supported reasons for partial credibility finding. |
| Consideration of IBS and GERD in RFC | Brown: ALJ did not properly address IBS and GERD or assign severity. | Commissioner: Once past Step Two, ALJ must consider all impairments in combination; he did so and found no significant functional limits from IBS/GERD. | Affirmed — ALJ sufficiently considered IBS and GERD in combination; no evidence they materially limited RFC. |
| Reliance on vocational expert hypotheticals | Brown: VE’s answer to a hypothetical with frequent absences/off-task should control, precluding jobs. | Commissioner: VE testimony to the RFC-supported hypothetical showed other jobs existed; ALJ need not adopt hypotheticals based on unsupported limitations. | Affirmed — ALJ reasonably relied on VE response to RFC-consistent hypothetical; no record support for excessive absences/off-task limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (when Appeals Council denies review, court reviews ALJ decision as Commissioner’s final decision)
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (substantial-evidence standard; no reweighing of facts or credibility)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (treating physician weight and proper hypothetical to VE must include claimant’s impairments)
- MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050 (11th Cir. 1986) (failure to specify weight given to treating physician’s opinion is reversible error)
- Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580 (11th Cir. 1991) (ALJ may rely on non-examining opinions that do not conflict with examining sources)
- Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731 (11th Cir. 1981) (ALJ must investigate medication side effects when they could be disabling)
- Swindle v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 222 (11th Cir. 1990) (isolated complaints of side effects insufficient to show significant problem absent treating doctors’ concern)
- Marbury v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d 837 (11th Cir. 1992) (ALJ must articulate reasons when discrediting subjective testimony)
- Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2003) (claimant bears burden to prove disability and produce supporting evidence)
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) (ALJ’s statement that no impairment or combination renders claimant disabled evidences consideration of combined impairments)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (five-step sequential evaluation)
- Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (hypothetical need only include impairments the ALJ finds credible)
- Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (ALJ need not adopt VE testimony based on limitations the ALJ rejects)