Thomas Atha, Jr. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
616 F. App'x 931
11th Cir.2015Background
- Thomas Windle Atha, Jr. sought SSI; ALJ found severe impairments (knee/leg fractures, mild DDD, depression, alcohol dependence, substance-abuse history, low average/borderline intellectual functioning) and that he could not do past relevant work.
- ALJ concluded Atha was not disabled at step five because vocational expert (VE) testimony identified sedentary jobs he could perform.
- VE testified to approximately 440 jobs in Alabama and 23,800 nationally (surveillance system monitor, inspector/sorter, machine tender).
- Atha appealed only the step-five finding (arguing the VE numbers do not constitute “significant numbers”) and contended the Appeals Council failed adequately to consider new medical evidence.
- The district court affirmed; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and whether the Appeals Council properly considered new evidence and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of job numbers at step five | VE numbers (23,800 national) are not a "significant number" so Atha is disabled | VE testimony showing thousands nationally satisfies Commissioner’s burden; focus is national economy | ALJ’s finding supported by substantial evidence; Atha not disabled |
| Appeals Council’s review of new evidence | Appeals Council failed to adequately evaluate/describe consideration of newly submitted medical records | Appeals Council stated it considered the evidence and found it did not warrant changing ALJ’s decision; detailed explanation not required | Denial of review was proper; Mitchell controls and statement was sufficient |
| Materiality of new evidence | New medical records required remand because they might change outcome | New records did not undermine ALJ RFC or show greater limitations; some records showed improvement | New evidence not material; no reasonable possibility it would change outcome |
| Reliance on local vs. national job numbers | Local scarcity undermines VE’s testimony | Proper focus is national economy, not immediate local job availability | National job figures control (Allen); substantial evidence supports step five |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (defines substantial-evidence standard and claimant’s burden)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (describes five-step sequential evaluation)
- Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 1999) (burden shift to Commissioner at step five)
- Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (claimant must show inability to perform jobs the Commissioner lists)
- Allen v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 600 (11th Cir. 1987) (focus on national economy; VE testimony can establish significant numbers)
- Mitchell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780 (11th Cir. 2014) (Appeals Council need not give detailed explanation when denying review)
- Parks ex rel. D.P. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 783 F.3d 847 (11th Cir. 2015) (clarifies Mitchell’s scope)
- Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard for Appeals Council granting review based on new evidence)
- Hyde v. Bowen, 823 F.2d 456 (11th Cir. 1987) (defines materiality for new evidence)
- Epps v. Harris, 624 F.2d 1267 (5th Cir. 1980) (distinguished; involved Appeals Council affirming ALJ decision)