Thomas Scott Henry v. Commissioner of Social Security, 802 F.3d 1264

Background

Henry applied for DIB and SSI alleging severe back pain and worsening vision; ALJ denied benefits after three hearings and the Appeals Council declined review.
After an earlier remand for clarification of RFC and medical-opinion weight, the ALJ again found Henry not disabled in 2013, discrediting Henry’s testimony and giving limited weight to consultative examiner Dr. Barber.
The ALJ relied in part on Henry’s limited/conservative treatment (no hospitalization, narcotics, or injections) to discount both Henry’s testimony and Dr. Barber’s opinion.
Henry asserted he could not afford more aggressive treatment (including surgeries), and evidence showed he received Tramadol from a free clinic; the ALJ did not probe Henry’s financial ability to obtain care.
The RFC and vocational expert hypotheticals did not clearly account for Henry’s vision impairment (blind in right eye, nearly blind in left), and the record did not show whether cataract surgery occurred or improved vision.
The Eleventh Circuit concluded the ALJ failed to develop a full and fair record regarding treatment access and vision, improperly discounted Dr. Barber based on non-treatment without considering good cause, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ erred in giving limited weight to Dr. Barber’s opinion	ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Barber based mainly on Henry’s failure to seek further treatment without considering inability to pay	ALJ permissibly considered limited/conservative treatment as inconsistent with severe limitations	Reversed — ALJ relied primarily on negative inference from non-treatment and failed to consider Henry’s financial barriers, so limited weight not supported by substantial evidence
Whether ALJ’s adverse credibility finding for Henry’s 2012 testimony was supported by substantial evidence	Henry contends ALJ failed to develop record about financial inability to pursue treatment, so non-treatment cannot be used to discredit him	Commissioner argues lack of aggressive treatment supports disbelief of alleged severity	Reversed — ALJ failed to probe into lack of treatment and record is underdeveloped, so credibility finding unsupported
Whether RFC and VE findings accounted for Henry’s vision limitations	Henry argues RFC and VE hypotheticals did not (explicitly or implicitly) include blindness in right eye and near blindness in left	Commissioner relies on VE testimony and ALJ’s RFC as sufficient to find work exists	Reversed — Record lacks development on vision status and VE questions did not account for eye impairment, so RFC/step-five determination unsupported
Whether plaintiff waived arguments on appeal by not raising them below	Commissioner contends waiver; Henry argued lack of substantial evidence in district court	Henry argues issues implied in substantial-evidence challenge; liberal construction applies	Court found no waiver — implied challenge encompassed sufficiency of the record and duty to develop it

Key Cases Cited

Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard of review in social-security appeals; do not reweigh evidence)
Brown v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 931 (11th Cir. 1995) (ALJ’s duty to develop full and fair record)
Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731 (11th Cir. 1981) (ALJ must scrupulously probe for all relevant facts)
Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2003) (cannot draw adverse inference from failure to seek treatment without considering good cause)
Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (substantial-evidence standard; hypothetical to VE must capture claimant’s limitations)
Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) (VE testimony is not substantial evidence unless hypothetical includes all impairments)