Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:16-cv-00572
M.D. Fla.Sep 20, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Beverly Fonda Woodward applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability beginning February 10, 2011; application denied and ALJ held a hearing on November 18, 2014.
- ALJ found multiple severe impairments (including DVT on anticoagulation, spinal degenerative disease with radiculopathy, right hip bursitis, obstructive sleep apnea, asthma, obesity, and several mental disorders) but did not find a listed impairment.
- ALJ assigned an RFC for a reduced range of light work with multiple postural, environmental, and mental limitations and concluded at step four that Plaintiff could return to her past work as an office helper.
- Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s treatment of medical source opinions (treating physician Fred Liebowitz, M.D., and treating psychiatrist Daryl Tanski, M.D.) and the evaluation of her subjective symptoms.
- The district court reversed and remanded because the ALJ failed to give adequate, supported reasons (good cause) for rejecting treating physician Liebowitz’s opinion; the court found the ALJ’s stated reasons were conclusory or unsupported by citations to the record. The court affirmed the ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Tanski’s opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred in rejecting treating physician Liebowitz’s opinion | ALJ lacked good cause; longitudinal records support Liebowitz’s limitations | ALJ reasonably found the opinion inconsistent with records and claimant’s activities | Reversed and remanded — ALJ did not articulate adequate, record-supported reasons to reject Liebowitz’s opinion |
| Whether ALJ erred in rejecting treating psychiatrist Tanski’s opinion | Tanski’s opinion should have been credited as treating psychiatrist | ALJ permissibly found Tanski’s opinion unsupported by treatment record and inconsistent with mental status exams and activities | Affirmed — ALJ gave adequate reasons supported by the record to discount Tanski’s opinion |
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints | (Raised but not resolved due to remand) | (Raised but not resolved due to remand) | Not addressed — court deferred because Liebowitz error may affect RFC and credibility findings |
| Whether ALJ’s RFC and step-four finding were supported by substantial evidence | (Raised but remanded as dependent on treatment of Liebowitz opinion) | (Raised but remanded) | Not finally decided — remanded for further consideration after proper evaluation of Liebowitz’s opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Commissioner, 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard that ALJ’s findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence)
- Winschel v. Commissioner of Social Security, 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (treating source opinion requires ALJ to state with particularity the weight given and reasons)
- Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004) (good cause exists to discount treating physician’s opinion when not bolstered, contrary evidence exists, or opinion is conclusory/inconsistent)
- MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050 (11th Cir. 1986) (ALJ must specify weight given to treating physician’s opinion and reasons for rejecting it)