Opinion ID: 3055001
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appeals Council’s Denial of Review

Text: Timmons filed a request for review with the Appeals Council and submitted new evidence. To his appeal brief, Timmons attached three additional letters from people who had witnessed Timmons’s continued problems with social functioning. Timmons also submitted a mental health evaluation conducted by Carol Beall, a licensed clinical social worker, on November 23, 2010, several months after the ALJ issued her decision. As a result of her exam, Beall observed that: (1) Timmons was well groomed, oriented, and maintained good eye contact; (2) he 6 Case: 12-16166 Date Filed: 07/09/2013 Page: 7 of 24 spoke rapidly, but his speech was coherent, relevant, and goal directed, but also often tangential; (3) his mood was labile, with tearfulness at times and hypomania at other times; (4) he did not have hallucinations or delusions, but he did have some religious preoccupation; (5) he had good insight into his mental health and addiction problems, but his symptoms remained problematic despite his compliance with treatment; (6) he had marked impairment of his memory at times and fair concentration, but required some redirection; (7) he had no suicidal or homicidal ideation. In her clinical findings, Beall stated that Timmons was cooperative and friendly during the interview and open and honest about his mental health problems. Timmons’s judgment was impaired at times, which impaired his ability to function, but he was willing to be “med compliant” and sober. Timmons claimed that the letters and Beall’s evaluation showed that Timmons’s limitations in social functioning were more severe than the limitations found by the ALJ. Timmons asked the Appeals Council to remand his case to the ALJ with instructions to reconsider and revise the RFC assessment and to obtain testimony from the VE regarding jobs he could perform with that revised RFC. The Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ’s decision. The Appeals Council noted that it considered and made part of the record Timmons’s new evidence, which it listed as Timmons’s appeal brief and the treatment evidence 7 Case: 12-16166 Date Filed: 07/09/2013 Page: 8 of 24 from Carol Beall. The Appeals Council concluded that “this information [did] not provide a basis for changing the [ALJ’s] decision.” The Appeals Council stated that Timmons’s appeal brief was incorporated into the record. However, the three letters purportedly attached to that brief are not in the agency’s certified administrative record filed with the district court.