Source: https://casetext.com/case/ellison-v-barnhart
Timestamp: 2019-12-15 09:00:43
Document Index: 276627379

Matched Legal Cases: ['art, 355', 'art\n355', 'art, 355', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416', '§ 416']

Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272 | Casetext
Ellison v. Barnhart
355 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2003)
Ellisonv.Barnhart
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitOct 1, 2003
Rodgers v. Astrue
It is axiomatic that the ALJ has a duty to develop a full and fair record. Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d…
Bellew v. Acting Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
Accordingly, "when an ALJ relies on noncompliance as the sole ground for the denial of disability benefits,…
1,220 Citing cases
holding ALJ's failure to consider claimant's ability to afford recommended medical treatment did not constitute reversible error where ALJ discredited claimant's allegations of disability based primarily on factors other than noncompliance with that treatment
Summary of this case from Hendrix v. Soc. Sec. Admin.
holding ALJ was not required to consider whether claimant was financially able to afford treatment when determination claimant was not disabled was not significantly based on a finding of non-compliance
Summary of this case from Klieforth v. Saul
holding that the claimant bears the burden of proving her disability and is therefore responsible for producing evidence to support of her claim
No. 03-11754 Non-Argument Calendar.
Additionally, the ALJ's consideration of Ellison's noncompliance as a factor in discrediting Ellison's allegations of disability is adequately supported by Dr. G.F. Garcia's opinion that "[Ellison's] frequent seizures can be explained because [of] his subtherapeutic level of anticonvulsants, most likely due to his non-compliance." Finally, the fact that Ellison worked for several years in spite of his seizure disorder, and the medical opinions of Drs. Arthur Schiff, Charles Bailey, David Williams, and Janet Rice, which indicate that Ellison's seizure disorder did not prevent him from meeting the demands of unskilled work, constitute substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision to discredit Dr. Baugh's opinion that Ellison was totally disabled. See Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding that "the ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion").
It is well-established that the ALJ has a basic duty to develop a full and fair record. 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(d) (stating that "[b]efore we make a determination that you are not disabled, we will develop your complete medical history for at least the 12 months preceding the month in which you file your application"); Brown v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 931, 934 (11th Cir. 1995). Nevertheless, the claimant bears the burden of proving that he is disabled, and, consequently, he is responsible for producing evidence in support of his claim. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(a) (stating that "[claimant] must furnish medical and other evidence that we can use to reach conclusions about your medical impairment(s)"); 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(c) (stating "[y]our responsibility. You must provide medical evidence showing that you have an impairment(s) and how severe it is during the time you say you are disabled").
Ellison filed his application for supplemental social security income on December 14, 1998, and, thus, the ALJ was required to develop Ellison's medical history for the 12 months prior to December 1998. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(d). Ellison makes no claim that the ALJ failed to do this; rather, his focus is on the period after his filing. The ALJ, however, was in no way bound to develop the medical record for 1999 and 2000, as Ellison contends. Moreover, the record reveals that the ALJ did attempt to develop the medical record by requesting on two occasions that Ellison furnish him with the 1999 and 2000 medical records, but Ellison failed to do so. Thus, Ellison is not entitled to relief on his contention that the ALJ failed to adequately develop the medical record. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.916 (stating that "[w]hen you fail to cooperate with us in obtaining evidence, we will have to make a decision based on the information available in your case").