Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15287/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15287-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Appellee
James Hilliard
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15287

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:13-cv-00870-MMH-MCR

JAMES HILLIARD, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(August 11, 2015)

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 14-15287 Date Filed: 08/11/2015 Page: 1 of 3
2

James Hilliard appeals from the district court’s order affirming the 

Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of his applications for a period of 

disability and disability insurance benefits, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On appeal, 

Hilliard argues that the ALJ’s ex parte communication with a medical expert 

deprived Hilliard of his right to due process and was prejudicial to him because, as 

a result of the communication, the ALJ gave little weight to Hilliard’s treating 

physician’s opinion.

In Social Security appeals, we review the decision of an ALJ as the 

Commissioner’s final decision when the ALJ denies benefits and the Appeals 

Council denies review of the ALJ’s decision. Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 

1278 (11th Cir. 2001). We review the Commissioner’s legal conclusions de novo

and consider whether the Commissioner’s factual findings are supported by 

substantial evidence. Lewis v. Barnhart, 285 F.3d 1329, 1330 (11th Cir. 2002).

Hilliard’s brief ignores the case law regarding ex parte communications 

between an ALJ and a medical expert, or ex parte communications of any sort for 

that matter. Here, as in Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Vinson, 623 F.2d 1117, 1121-

11 (5th Cir. 1980),1 Hilliard was afforded an opportunity to address the ex parte

communication, but failed to do so. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the 

communication was improper, it must have prejudiced Hilliard to warrant reversal. 

 1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), we 

adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions issued before October 1, 1981.

USCA11 Case: 14-15287 Date Filed: 08/11/2015 Page: 2 of 3
3

Guenther v. Comm’r, 889 F.2d 882, 884 (9th Cir. 1989). Upon review of the briefs 

and the record, the Court cannot conclude that any communication between the 

ALJ and Dr. Hamrick prejudiced Hilliard.

2

 Even completely ignoring Dr. 

Hamrick’s testimony, the substantial evidence, including Hilliard’s own testimony, 

supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Hilliard was not disabled within the meaning of 

the Social Security Act at any time from the alleged onset date through the date of 

the decision.

AFFIRMED. 

 2 The communication apparently involved a recommendation by the medical expert that 

Hilliard be referred for another psychological exam. Such recommendation was passed on to 

Hilliard’s representative the next day, and the additional exam was subsequently scheduled.

USCA11 Case: 14-15287 Date Filed: 08/11/2015 Page: 3 of 3