Tessie Lynn Glover v. Carolyn W. Colvin
705 F. App'x 815
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Glover applied for disability insurance benefits and SSI based on alleged disability with an onset date of August 30, 2005; SSA initially denied and she requested a hearing.
- ALJ denied benefits at first hearing; Appeals Council vacated and remanded for VE testimony; on remand ALJ again denied benefits.
- District court affirmed the ALJ; Glover appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
- Consultative examiner Dr. Clancy found limitations: problems with reliability, slower processing, able to follow simple instructions, handle low-to-moderate stress but decompensate with prolonged moderate stress.
- Treating physician Dr. Cunanan noted exertional limits (lifting/standing/sitting/walking) and opined Glover might have difficulty adhering to schedules or meeting production norms, concluding a poor-to-fair prognosis to work.
- ALJ gave significant weight to Clancy for limiting Glover to simple instructions and occasional public contact; credited Cunanan’s exertional limitations but rejected his poor-to-fair prognosis and some work-adherence conclusions as unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly weighed consultative opinion of Dr. Clancy in RFC | Glover: ALJ failed to account for Clancy’s findings about reliability and stress-related decompensation | ALJ incorporated limits into RFC (simple tasks, occasional public contact) and Clancy did not frame reliability as work-limiting | Court: ALJ adequately considered and explained weight; incorporated supported limitations |
| Whether ALJ properly considered treating/examining opinions of Dr. Cunanan | Glover: ALJ ignored Cunanan’s opinion that she might have difficulty adhering to schedules and meeting production norms | ALJ discussed Cunanan, afforded great weight to exertional limits but rejected the poor-to-fair prognosis and related work-adherence conclusion as unsupported | Court: ALJ did not ignore Cunanan; he rejected unsupported conclusions but adopted supported exertional limits |
| Whether VE testimony was based on an incomplete hypothetical | Glover: VE hypothetical omitted limitations from Clancy and Cunanan, so testimony cannot support step-five finding | ALJ need only include limitations he found supported; he included all impairments supported by the record in the hypothetical | Court: VE testimony was based on a complete hypothetical of supported limitations; substantial evidence supports step five |
Key Cases Cited
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must state with particularity weight given to medical opinions)
- Owens v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir. 1984) (courts will not affirm where ALJ fails to state grounds for decision)
- Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) (ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence if decision shows consideration of medical condition as a whole)
- Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (ALJ is not required to include in a hypothetical limitations he properly rejects as unsupported)