[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-14350

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JEFFREY HOWARD SHARPE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cv-00027-LGW-BWC

____________________

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 1 of 20
2 Opinion of the Court 20-14350

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Sharpe appeals from a district court order affirming 

the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to deny his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. Sharpe argues that the administrative 

law judge (“ALJ”) erred in assessing his residual functional capacity by determining that he occasionally could interact with supervisors and coworkers. After careful consideration, we conclude 

that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s assessment 

that Sharpe occasionally could interact with supervisors and 

coworkers. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment 

and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to 

the Commissioner.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

In 2011, after approximately 20 years of service, Sharpe retired from the Navy. Upon his retirement, the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (“VA”) determined that Sharpe was partially disabled due to service-connected impairments and awarded him 

benefits. In 2016, Sharpe applied to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) for disability insurance benefits and a period of 

disability. In his application, Sharpe claimed that he was disabled 

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 2 of 20
20-14350 Opinion of the Court 3

due to various physical and psychological impairments.1 He asserted that he was disabled as of October 1, 2015,2 and remained 

disabled through December 31, 2016, his date last insured. After 

the SSA denied Sharpe’s application, he requested and received a 

hearing before an ALJ.

A. The ALJ Hearing

At the hearing, the ALJ heard testimony from Sharpe and 

his wife and reviewed written questionnaires they completed. 

The ALJ also reviewed Sharpe’s medical records and the opinion 

of a state agency consultant.

1. Testimony and Statements from Sharpe and His 

Wife

The testimony and questionnaires from Sharpe and his 

wife reflected that since retiring from the Navy, Sharpe suffered 

from anxiety and rarely, if ever, left his home or interacted with 

anyone outside his immediate family. 

1 Because Sharpe’s arguments on appeal relate to the ALJ’s assessment of his

limitations due to his psychological impairments, we discuss the evidence 

related to these impairments only.

2 Under the relevant regulations, Sharpe could receive benefits beginning “up 

to 12 months immediately before the month in which [his] application [was]

filed.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.621(a)(1). Given the date of his application, Sharpe was 

eligible for benefits beginning on October 1, 2015.

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 3 of 20
4 Opinion of the Court 20-14350

On a typical day, Sharpe would wake up and dress himself. 

He would need reminders to shower and take his medications. 

Sharpe would spend most of the day inside the house, watching 

television or playing video games. Sharpe would go outside his 

home into his backyard to tend to his pepper plants. 

Sharpe would perform only limited household chores. He 

was unable to prepare his own meals or do much housework or 

yard work. He would clear dishes after he ate meals and, if reminded, feed the families’ fish and rabbits. The only other household chore he would perform is that about once a year Sharpe 

would repair the family’s computer when it broke. Although the 

repair would only take about 30 minutes, Sharpe would need

“constant reminding” to complete this task. Doc. 7-7 at 25.3

Sharpe depended on his wife to handle all the family’s finances 

and pay their bills. 

Sharpe almost never left the home he shared with his wife 

and two children. Over a six-year period, he departed his home 

no more than 12 times. When Sharpe tried to leave his home, he 

would become agitated and angry. He would experience panic 

attacks, cry, and end up sick in bed for days. 

Sharpe had only limited contact with people outside his 

immediate family. He would not have visitors to his home. If 

someone rang the doorbell, Sharpe would not answer. If someone 

3 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 4 of 20
20-14350 Opinion of the Court 5

called the home phone, he would let the phone ring. He would 

answer only if he could tell from caller identification that it was 

his wife calling.

After he retired from the Navy, Sharpe enrolled in an 

online university and earned a college degree. He relied on his 

wife to help him complete the degree. There is no indication that 

Sharpe left his home to complete his degree.

Sharpe missed many important events due to his inability 

to leave his home. He attended none of his daughter’s marching 

band performances and missed her high school graduation.4

When Sharpe’s father died, he was unable to leave his house to 

attend the funeral.

Due to his inability to leave the house, Sharpe rarely received medical care. He refused to submit to medical procedures

unless he felt the procedure was necessary to treat a lifethreatening condition. Sharpe’s wife repeatedly tried to schedule 

medical appointments for him. But most times Sharpe would get

anxious before the appointment and be unable to attend. At one 

point, the VA attempted to set up phone counseling appointments for him. But Sharpe became upset and refused to talk on 

the phone. 

4 The record also included a written statement from Sharpe’s daughter, who 

recently graduated from high school, detailing his limitations and the events 

that he had missed. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 5 of 20
6 Opinion of the Court 20-14350

2. Sharpe’s Medical Records

The ALJ also reviewed Sharpe’s medical records. Because

Sharpe saw no medical providers during the approximately fiveyear period between his discharge from the Navy and his date last 

insured, there were no records from this period. The medical records before the ALJ that related to Sharpe’s psychological impairments all came from the period after his date last insured. The 

records included an examination report from Dr. William Corey, 

Ph.D., and treatment notes and a medical questionnaire from 

psychiatrist Dr. Jerry Co, M.D.

In March 2017, approximately three months after Sharpe’s 

date last insured, Corey performed a psychological examination, 

which lasted approximately three hours. As part of the examination, Corey interviewed Sharpe about his current symptoms as 

well as his health history. Sharpe claimed that he suffered from 

anxiety as well as insomnia. He described how his mental health 

limitations left him unable to leave his house. 

As part of the examination, Corey reviewed Sharpe’s medical and mental health history. Sharpe explained that since retiring 

from the military, he had not received medical treatment because 

he was unwilling to leave his house to visit a doctor’s office. He 

reported that before he retired from the military, he experienced

“anxiety” and “social phobia.” Doc. 7-9 at 32–33. During this period before his retirement, Sharpe stated, his anxiety “appear[ed] to 

occur when he [was] in large groups of people.” Id. at 33.

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 6 of 20
20-14350 Opinion of the Court 7

During the examination, Corey observed Sharpe’s behavior. Corey noted that Sharpe did not make eye contact during the 

examination, displayed little spontaneous speech, and had a distant and guarded attitude. But Corey also found that Sharpe was 

able to communicate effectively and that it was easy to establish a 

rapport. 

Also during the examination, Corey performed several diagnostic tests to measure Sharpe’s intelligence as well as his concentration, attention, and memory. Corey estimated Sharpe’s IQ 

to be below average. Corey observed “significant” differences between Sharpe’s verbal comprehension, on the one hand, and his 

working memory and processing speed, on the other hand. Id. at 

35. After accounting for these differences, Corey opined that 

Sharpe’s full-scale IQ was in the “borderline range.” Id.

Based on the examination, Corey diagnosed Sharpe with 

panic disorder, agoraphobia, and avoidant personality disorder

and determined that Sharpe faced limitations due to his mental 

impairments. Corey found that Sharpe was “quite limited” in his 

ability to handle abstraction and had impaired recent and remote 

memory. Id. at 34. Corey opined that Sharpe was “severely impaired” in his capability to interact appropriately with others, 

“moderately impaired” in his ability to adapt to workplace stressors, and “mildly impaired” in his ability to understand and remember detailed instructions and to sustain attention for extended periods of time. Id. at 35. Corey concluded that Sharpe’s anxieUSCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 7 of 20
8 Opinion of the Court 20-14350

ty disorder was “treatable” but noted that his reluctance to interact with others was “more chronic.” Id.

Several months later, Sharpe began receiving treatment 

from Co, a VA psychiatrist. Over an approximately nine-month

period, Sharpe saw Co five times. During this period, Co diagnosed Sharpe with generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder 

with agoraphobia, insomnia, REM sleep disorder, mood disorder, 

and somatoform disorder.5 Co treated Sharpe with medication;

Sharpe declined psychotherapy treatment.

Even with medication, Sharpe reported no improvement.

He remained unable to leave his house. In addition, he reported 

significant side effects from the medications.

Co changed Sharpe’s medication multiple times, trying to 

find medications that would control Sharpe’s symptoms. But after 

approximately nine months of treatment, it was concluded that 

“medication trials have been unsuccessful to address all of 

[Sharpe’s] symptoms, including his difficulty in leaving . . . home 

for ordinary activities.” Doc. 7-13 at 53.

5 Somatoform disorder “is characterized by an extreme focus on physical 

symptoms—such as pain or fatigue—that causes major emotional distress 

and problems functioning.” Mayo Clinic, Somatic Symptom Disorder, available at https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/somatic-symptomdisorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20377776 (last accessed Jan. 13, 2022).

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 8 of 20
20-14350 Opinion of the Court 9

After Sharpe’s fifth appointment, Co completed a Mental 

Impairment Questionnaire, addressing the extent of Sharpe’s impairments. In the questionnaire, Co reported that Sharpe’s current 

Global Assessment of Functioning (“GAF”) score was 356 and that 

he had a poor prognosis.

In the questionnaire, Co opined about Sharpe’s abilities to 

perform work-related activities on a day-to-day basis in a work 

environment. He reported that Sharpe had no useful ability to 

perform a number of work-related functions, including accepting

instructions and responding appropriately to criticism from supervisors, getting along with co-workers or peers without unduly 

distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes, and dealing

with normal work stress. Co concluded that Sharpe had extreme 

6 The GAF is a numeric scale used to rate an individual's overall level functioning. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 

of Mental Disorders 32–33 (4th ed. 2000) (“DSM-IV”). Sharpe’s score of 35 

indicates that he was experiencing a “major impairment in several areas such 

as work or school, family relation, judgment, thinking[,] or mood.” Doc. 7-2 

at 27. 

The DSM abandoned the use of GAF scoring, noting “its conceptual lack of 

clarity” and “questionable psychometrics in routine practice.” American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

16 (5th ed. 2013) (“DSM-V”). After the DSM-V was published, the SSA issued 

a directive to ALJs instructing them to consider GAF scores as medical opinion evidence but emphasizing that GAF scores should not be considered in 

isolation because the GAF is only a snapshot about a person’s level of functioning. Soc. Sec. Admin., Administrative Message 13066 (July 22, 2013).

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 9 of 20
10 Opinion of the Court 20-14350

limitations in maintaining social functioning, explaining that 

Sharpe had “poor cognitive processing” as well as “avoidance 

symptoms” that precluded him from working with others. Id. at 

11. Co also indicated that in the past year Sharpe had experienced 

four or more episodes of decompensation, each lasting at least 

two weeks. Co ultimately opined that Sharpe’s anxiety-related 

disorder left him with a “complete inability to function independently outside” of his home. Id. at 13. Co also determined that 

Sharpe had been unable to function or work due to his psychological impairments even before he retired from the Navy.

3. The State Agency Consultant Opinion 

The ALJ also reviewed an opinion from Dr. William Gore, 

Ph.D., a state agency consultant who reviewed Sharpe’s medical 

records but never treated or examined him. Gore reviewed 

Sharpe’s file in July 2017, after Corey had examined Sharpe but 

before Co had begun to treat him.7

Based on his review of Sharpe’s medical records, Gore 

opined that Sharpe had moderate, but not marked, limitations in 

interacting with others. Gore determined that Sharpe was moderately limited in his ability to interact with the general public but 

not significantly limited in his ability to get along with coworkers 

7 Before Sharpe saw Corey, another state agency consultant reviewed 

Sharpe’s file and determined there was insufficient evidence to assess his psychological impairments. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 10 of 20
20-14350 Opinion of the Court 11

or peers without distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes. Gore further opined that Sharpe “may need to work in an 

environment with minimal social interaction” and “would benefit 

from working with a nonconfrontational supervisor.” Doc. 7-3 at 

35.

B. The ALJ’s Decision

In a written decision, the ALJ applied the five-step sequential evaluation process and determined that Sharpe was not disabled. At the first step, the ALJ found that Sharpe had not engaged 

in substantial gainful activity during the period from the alleged 

onset of disability through his date last insured. At the second 

step, the ALJ concluded that as of the date last insured Sharpe had 

severe impairments, including anxiety disorder, mood disorder, 

somatoform disorder, agoraphobia, avoidant personality disorder, 

and insomnia.

At the third step, the ALJ found that through the date last 

insured Sharpe had no impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of a listed impairment. To meet or medically equal the relevant listings, Sharpe

had to have, among other things, extreme or marked limitations 

in at least two of the following areas of functioning: understanding, remembering, or applying information; interacting with others; concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and adapting 

or managing himself. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpart P, app. 1, 

§ 12.00(A)(2)(B)(b). The ALJ found that Sharpe had a marked limitation in only one area: interacting with others. With regard to

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 11 of 20
12 Opinion of the Court 20-14350

limitations in interacting with others, the ALJ found that Sharpe’s 

“primary problem appear[ed] to be severe social anxiety that exacerbated after his retirement from the military to the point that 

he has very little interaction with others, but it appears to mostly 

occur in large crowds of people.” Doc. 7-2 at 22. To support this 

conclusion, the ALJ cited Corey’s report.

Because Sharpe’s impairments did not meet or medically 

equal the severity of a listed impairment, the ALJ moved on to 

step four of the analysis and assessed Sharpe’s residual functional 

capacity. The ALJ found that Sharpe could perform light work 

subject to certain limitations. The limitations included that Sharpe 

could perform only unskilled, routine, and repetitive tasks; have

no more than occasional interaction with supervisors and 

coworkers; and have no interaction with the general public. Based 

on this residual functional capacity, the ALJ determined that 

Sharpe was unable to perform his past relevant work. 

In assessing Sharpe’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ 

considered statements from Sharpe and his family about Sharpe’s

symptoms. The ALJ found that their statements concerning the 

intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of Sharpe’s symptoms 

were “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other 

evidence in the record” and gave them only partial weight. Id. at 

24. 

In the decision, the ALJ discussed the weight assigned to 

the opinions from Corey, Co, and Gore. The ALJ generally 

adopted Gore’s assessments of Sharpe’s mental limitations, except 

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 12 of 20
20-14350 Opinion of the Court 13

to find that Sharpe had marked limitations in interacting with the 

public. The ALJ explained that with this modification Gore’s assessment was consistent with Corey’s. The ALJ then stated that 

Sharpe should have no interaction with the public because Sharpe 

had “testified” that he was limited “particularly with regard to 

larger crowds.” Id. at 27. The ALJ provided no citation to the record where Sharpe had testified that he was limited with respect to 

larger crowds only and was not similarly restricted with respect to 

smaller groups of people, such as supervisors or coworkers. 

The ALJ gave no weight to Co’s opinions. The ALJ concluded that Co’s opinion that Sharpe’s potential for improvement 

was poor was inconsistent with his treatment notes, which 

showed an ongoing conservative treatment history involving only

“medication management.” Id. In addition, the ALJ found that 

Co’s opinion that Sharpe had poor cognitive abilities was not supported by evidence in the record, which showed that Sharpe was 

able to engage in “substantial activities with computers, bank accounts, and video games.” Id.

At step five, the ALJ determined that given Sharpe’s age, 

education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, 

there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national 

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 13 of 20
14 Opinion of the Court 20-14350

economy that he could perform. The ALJ thus concluded that 

Sharpe was not disabled.8

C. District Court Proceedings

Sharpe filed an action in federal district court, asking the 

court to reverse the Commissioner’s decision. The magistrate 

judge recommended that the district court affirm the Commissioner’s decision. Sharpe objected. The district court overruled 

the objection, adopted the report and recommendation, and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. This is Sharpe’s appeal. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

When, as here, an ALJ denies benefits and the Appeals 

Council denies review, we review the ALJ’s decision as the 

Commissioner’s final decision. See Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 

1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence, 

but we review de novo the legal principles upon which the decision is based. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 

2005). Substantial evidence refers to “such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. “We may not decide facts anew, reweigh the evidence, 

or substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner.” Dyer 

v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005) (alteration 

8 Sharpe requested the Appeals Council review the ALJ’s decision, but the 

Appeals Council denied his request for review.

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 14 of 20
20-14350 Opinion of the Court 15

adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted). We must affirm the 

Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, 

“even if the proof preponderates against it.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

A disabled individual may be eligible for disability insurance benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1). To be eligible, a claimant 

must prove that he became disabled on or before the date for 

which he was last insured. See Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211. Because 

Sharpe’s last insured date was December 31, 2016, he must show 

a disability on or before that date. 

To determine whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ applies a five-step sequential evaluation process. The ALJ asks 

whether the claimant: (1) is engaging in substantial gainful activity; (2) has a severe and medically determinable impairment or 

combination of impairments; (3) has an impairment or combination of impairments that satisfies the criteria of a listing; (4) can 

perform her past relevant work in light of her residual functional 

capacity; and (5) can adjust to other work in light of her residual 

functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. 

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

In this case we are concerned with the ALJ’s assessment of 

Sharpe’s residual functional capacity. Sharpe argues that the ALJ 

erred in concluding that he occasionally could interact with 

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 15 of 20
16 Opinion of the Court 20-14350

coworkers and supervisors. We agree that substantial evidence 

does not support this finding.9

The record reflects that due to his anxiety and other psychological impairments, Sharpe was unable to interact with anyone outside of his immediate family. Over a six-year period, he 

left his home no more than a dozen times. To avoid interacting 

with others, he would refuse to answer the door to his home, pick 

up the phone if it was ringing, or allow his children to have 

friends over. His anxiety was so severe that he was unable to 

leave his home to attend his daughter’s high school graduation or

his father’s funeral. When faced with having to interact with 

someone outside his family, Sharpe would become agitated and 

angry and end up sick in bed for days. Given that Sharpe’s social 

network did not extend beyond his immediate family, we cannot 

say that the record before us contains evidence that a reasonable 

person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion that 

Sharpe was able to have occasional interaction with supervisors

and coworkers in a working environment.

9 Sharpe also argues that the ALJ erred in assigning no weight to the opinion 

of Co, his treating psychiatrist. Because the case must be remanded to the 

ALJ on the ground that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s determination that Sharpe remained able to occasionally interact with supervisors and coworkers, we do not reach the question of whether the ALJ erred 

in assigning no weight to Co’s opinion. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 16 of 20
20-14350 Opinion of the Court 17

The ALJ nevertheless concluded that Sharpe occasionally 

could interact with a supervisor or coworkers. To support this 

conclusion, the ALJ cited to Corey’s report. But Corey’s report 

reflected only that Sharpe stated that when he retired from the 

Navy, six years earlier, he had discrete periods of anxiety that occurred when “he [was] in large groups of people.” Doc. 7-9 at 33. 

Setting aside whether this statement supported an inference that,

at the time he retired from the Navy, Sharpe remained able to 

have occasional interactions with supervisors or coworkers, nothing in Corey’s report supports the conclusion that during the relevant time period, which was several years after Sharpe’s retirement, he experienced anxiety only when he was in large groups

and would be able to interact occasionally with supervisors or 

coworkers. Rather, Corey’s report reflects that during the relevant time period, Sharpe was generally unable to leave his home

or interact with anyone outside his immediate family.10

The Commissioner argues that other medical evidence

supports the ALJ’s assessment because it “show[s] that [Sharpe]

claimed his anxiety occurred when he was in large groups.” Ap10 To support the residual functional capacity assessment that Sharpe could 

occasionally interact with coworkers or a supervisor, the ALJ also said 

Sharpe had testified that his social anxiety mostly occurred in crowds. But 

the ALJ provided no citation to the record where Sharpe provided such testimony. Having carefully reviewed the record, we see no testimony indicating that Sharpe was able to interact with anyone outside his immediate family during the relevant time period. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 17 of 20
18 Opinion of the Court 20-14350

pellee’s Br. at 22. The Commissioner cites to a report from a medical provider who examined Sharpe to determine his physical limitations and a treatment note from Co. But the ALJ did not rely 

on either piece of evidence to support the conclusion that Sharpe 

experienced anxiety only when in large crowds or remained able 

to have occasional interactions with coworkers or supervisors, so 

we may not affirm on this basis. See Owens v. Heckler, 748 F.2d

1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1984) (explaining that we may not affirm the 

Commissioner’s decision “simply because some rationale might 

have supported the ALJ’s conclusion. Such an approach would 

not advance the ends of reasoned decision making.” (footnote 

omitted)); see also Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 455 (5th Cir. 

2000) (“The ALJ’s decision must stand or fall with the reasons set 

forth in the ALJ’s decision . . . .”).

Even if we could consider this rationale that the ALJ did 

not offer, we are not persuaded that either piece of evidence supports the Commissioner’s position. First, the report from the examining medical provider the Commissioner cites reflects that 

Sharpe and his wife reported that he experienced panic attacks

and generally stayed at home. Sharpe’s wife told this provider that 

he generally experienced about two panic attacks a week when at 

home but had them “more often” when he was “among people.” 

Doc. 7-9 at 26. At most, this statement reflects that being around 

people outside his household triggered Sharpe’s panic attacks. 

The statement does not specify the number of people; thus, it 

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 18 of 20
20-14350 Opinion of the Court 19

does not support the conclusion that Sharpe’s panic attacks were 

triggered only when he was in a large group.

Second, Co’s treatment notes do not support the Commissioner’s assessment of Sharpe’s limitations. In the cited treatment 

note, Co summarized Sharpe’s history and noted that Sharpe’s 

wife reported that he had particularly severe episodes “only” 

when he was in “social situations.” Doc. 7-13 at 16. Nothing in 

this statement indicated that Sharpe could function so long as the 

social situation did not involve a large group. 

Although our standard of review is deferential, it does not 

mean that we “merely rubber[]stamp” an ALJ’s decision. Schink v. 

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245, 1257 (11th Cir. 2019). We 

“must scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the decision reached is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, we conclude that the record does not contain such evidence that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the ALJ’s 

conclusion that Sharpe remained able to interact occasionally

with co-workers or supervisors. We therefore conclude that the 

ALJ erred in assessing Sharpe’s residual functional capacity, and 

the case must be remanded.11

11 The record reflects that if Sharpe could not sustain at least occasional interaction with coworkers or supervisors, there were insufficient jobs in the 

national economy that he could perform.

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 19 of 20
20 Opinion of the Court 20-14350

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, we reverse the judgment of 

the district court and remand with instructions to remand to the 

Commissioner.

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

USCA11 Case: 20-14350 Date Filed: 01/18/2022 Page: 20 of 20