Court Opinion

ID: 9381525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 13:00:29.946052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:33.171694
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10938    Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 03/23/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit
                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10938
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       SHEILA DIANE ISBELL,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
       COMMISSIONER,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Alabama
                    D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-01379-SGC
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10938      Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 03/23/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10938

       Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Sheila Isbell appeals from the district court’s order affirming
       the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for a
       period of disability and disability insurance benefits. She argues
       that the ALJ failed to (1) properly consider her Department of Vet-
       erans Affairs disability rating and (2) properly determine her date
       of disability.
                                         I
              In Social Security appeals, we ask whether the Commis-
       sioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Moore
       v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). We review de
       novo the legal principles upon which the Commissioner bases the
       decision. See id. Because the Appeals Council declined to review
       the ALJ’s decision, we review it as the Commissioner’s final deci-
       sion. See Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001).
              A decision by another government agency that a claimant is
       disabled or entitled to benefits is not binding on the SSA and is nei-
       ther valuable nor persuasive. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1504,
       404.1520b(c)(1), 416.920b(c)(1). Therefore, when considering
       claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, the SSA will not provide
       any analysis in its decisions about a determination made by another
       agency. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504. The SSA, however, will consider
       all supporting evidence underlying the other agency’s decision.
       See id.
USCA11 Case: 22-10938      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 03/23/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-10938                Opinion of the Court                         3

                                         II
               We first address whether the ALJ failed to properly consider
       Ms. Isbell’s VA disability rating. Ms. Isbell filed her application for
       disability on August 28, 2017, after the March 27, 2017, effective
       date of the SSA’s new regulations concerning the weight afforded
       other agencies’ disability determinations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504.
       The ALJ was therefore not required to (and did not) give weight to
       the VA’s disability determination in ruling on Ms. Isbell’s applica-
       tion. And because prior versions of § 404.1504 are irrelevant to Ms.
       Isbell’s claims, so too are our decisions interpreting that provision.
       See, e.g., Noble v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 963 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir.
       2020) (discussing § 404.1504 (2016)). Additionally, to the extent
       that Ms. Isbell argues that the ALJ failed to consider the evidence
       underlying the VA’s disability determination, she waived any such
       argument by raising it for the first time in her reply brief. See Ac-
       cess Now, Inc. v. S.W. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir.
       2004). Nevertheless, our review shows that the ALJ did consider
       the underlying evidence, including the VA’s medical records.
             We next consider whether the ALJ erred by failing to seek
       medical advice concerning the onset date of Ms. Isbell’s disability
       under SSR 83-20. In relevant part, SSR 83-20 states that: “In addi-
       tion to determining that an individual is disabled, the deci-
       sionmaker must also establish the onset date of disability.” SSR 83-
USCA11 Case: 22-10938        Document: 29-1         Date Filed: 03/23/2023        Page: 4 of 4

       4                         Opinion of the Court                      22-10938

       20, 1983-1991 Soc. Sec. Rep. Serv. 49 (Jan. 1, 1983). The onset date
       of disability is “the first day an individual is disabled.” Id. 1
               Accordingly, the ALJ must necessarily determine whether
       an applicant is disabled before determining the onset date of disa-
       bility. Here, the ALJ found that Ms. Isbell was not disabled and
       therefore was not required to determine the onset date of disabil-
       ity. Accordingly, because she cannot show that the ALJ erred,
       there was no error by the Commissioner. See Doughty, 245 F.3d
       at 1278. 2
                                             III
               The Commissioner did not err in denying Ms. Isbell’s appli-
       cation for a period disability and disability insurance benefits. The
       district court’s decision is affirmed.
              AFFIRMED.

       1 “Social Security Rulings are agency rulings ‘published under the authority of
       the Commissioner of Social Security and are binding on all components of the
       Administration.’” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 n.9 (1990) (citation
       omitted).
       2 As of October 2, 2018, SSR 18-01p replaced SSR 83-20. See Titles II and XVI:
       Determining the Established Onset Date (EOD) in Disability Claims, 83 Fed.
       Reg. 49613 (Oct. 2., 2018) (rescinding and replacing SSR 83-20). Under SSR 18-
       01p, which came into effect while Ms. Isbell’s application was pending, the ALJ
       generally has discretion to determine whether to consult a medical expert to
       determine the EOD. See id. Assuming that SSR 18-01p governed her applica-
       tion, the ALJ was no longer required to consult a medical expert concerning
       her EOD. Compare SSR 83-20, with SSR 81-01p.