431 F. App'x 830
11th Cir.2011Background
- Walbert Lawton appeals a district court decision affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- Lawton argues the ALJ erred by rejecting a treating physician’s ten-pound lifting limitation as not reflecting impairment history.
- Lawton contends the ALJ failed to consider various opinions from treating physicians Earls and Vance.
- The AC decision on review and new evidence submitted there are discussed, but the court limits review to the ALJ’s decision and the record.
- The court ultimately affirms in part and remands in part to readdress weight given to certain treating/examining physicians’ opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to treating physician Soundappan | Lawton argues Soundappan’s ten-pound limitation should be credited. | ALJ properly weighed evidence against longitudinal history. | Remand for explicit weight determination needed. |
| Failure to address opinions from Earls and Vance | ALJ failed to consider unsigned Vance and Earls opinions conflicting with RFC. | Defendant contends some opinions are non-examining or reserved issues. | ALJ must explicitly discuss weight of these opinions on remand. |
| Treatment of opinions on reserved issues | Even reserved-issue opinions must be considered by the ALJ. | Such opinions are not controlling but should be weighed. | ALJ failed to explain consideration of Earls’ and Vance’s opinions; remand required. |
| Scope of review on new evidence and AC decisions | New evidence submitted to AC may influence the outcome when tied to ALJ decision. | If challenging only the ALJ decision, AC evidence is not reviewed. | Review limited to ALJ record; issue preserved for remand but not expanded on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1988) (non-examining opinion alone not substantial to reject treating source)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (good cause required to disregard treating opinions)
- Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir. 1997) (weight to treating opinions with good cause; substantial evidence standard)
- Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) (court may not reweigh evidence; must have clear reasoning)
- Falge v. Apfel, 150 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 1998) (evidence submitted to AC considered only to extent relates to pre-ALJ period)
- Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731 (11th Cir. 1981) (ALJ must articulate weight given to probative exhibits)
- Ingram v. Comm’r, 496 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2007) (evaluate new evidence on review of ALJ decision)
- Winschel v. Comm’r, 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (remand when weight of opinions not clearly articulated)
- Owens v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir. 1984) (need credibility determination when evaluating evidence)