Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:16-cv-00628
M.D. Fla.Aug 21, 2017Background
- Roger Thompson applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) alleging onset August 31, 2012, due to pelvic fractures with hardware, a metal rod in his back, and diabetes; application was denied and ALJ held a hearing on Sept. 15, 2014.
- ALJ found severe impairments (diabetes, hypertension, post‑surgical pelvic fractures, post‑surgical degenerative disc disease, degenerative joint disease) but not presumptively disabling and assessed an RFC for medium work with restrictions (no ladders/ropes/scaffolds, only occasional stooping/kneeling/crawling/ramp/stair climbing, avoid vibration and hazards).
- ALJ concluded Thompson could not perform past work but could perform other jobs (linen room attendant, hand packager, cook helper) and was therefore not disabled from Aug. 31, 2012 through the decision date.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing the ALJ mischaracterized facts (stating he refused an MRI and had no specialist referrals) and improperly relied on a state non‑examining physician (Dr. Whittier) who lacked some later evidence when rendering his opinion.
- Court found ALJ likely misstated the MRI refusal (records show insurance denial) and made an apparent typographical error about specialist treatment, but held those inaccuracies did not undermine the RFC or credibility findings because the ALJ otherwise relied on substantial, consistent evidence (conservative treatment, mostly non‑remarkable exams, lack of treating opinions supporting total disability).
- Court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, concluding the ALJ’s credibility and RFC findings were supported by substantial evidence and that reliance on the non‑examining consultant was not improper given the ALJ considered later evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ mischaracterized medical evidence (MRI refusal / no specialist referral) | Thompson: ALJ wrongly said he refused MRI and never saw specialists; those statements undermine credibility and RFC | Gov: ALJ likely misstated MRI and made a typographical error about specialty care, but other valid reasons support the ALJ’s findings | Court: ALJ likely erred as to MRI language and misstated referral history, but errors were harmless because other substantial evidence supports credibility and RFC findings |
| Whether ALJ improperly relied on non‑examining state physician (Dr. Whittier) whose opinion predated some records | Thompson: Dr. Whittier lacked post‑op/treatment notes, so his opinion should not be relied on | Gov: ALJ considered later evidence and reasonably found Dr. Whittier’s opinion consistent with overall record and claimant’s activities | Court: Reliance was proper; ALJ considered subsequent evidence and adequately explained weight accorded to the opinion |
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective pain/symptoms | Thompson: ALJ failed to give full credit to his pain testimony | Gov: ALJ provided reasons (conservative treatment, GP treated most, lack of treating opinions showing inability to work, mostly unremarkable exams) | Court: ALJ gave explicit, adequate reasons and those are supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether the RFC is supported by substantial evidence | Thompson: RFC fails because of errors in evidence characterization and reliance on incomplete opinion | Gov: RFC consistent with records, treatment, and activity level | Court: RFC supported by substantial evidence and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (describing the five‑step sequential evaluation for disability)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (burden allocation between claimant and agency at sequential steps)
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) (standard for evaluating pain testimony and subjective symptoms)
- Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to medical opinions)
- Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (court will affirm if ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence)