Court Opinion

ID: 9900819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 16:01:51.996035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:18.706675
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13309    Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 11/20/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13309
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       BRIAN JAMES WEIDLICH,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-01226-SPF
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13309         Document: 20-1         Date Filed: 11/20/2023         Page: 2 of 7

       2                          Opinion of the Court                       22-13309

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Brian Weidlich appeals a magistrate judge’s order 1 aﬃrming
       the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s denial of his
       claim for a period of disability and disability insurance beneﬁts. Af-
       ter careful review, we reverse.
                                              I.
               Weidlich, age 51, applied for a period of disability and disa-
       bility insurance beneﬁts in February 2019, alleging that he had be-
       come disabled in October 2018. In his disability application,
       Weidlich reported insomnia, knee osteoarthritis, a surgically re-
       paired meniscus tear, neck spasms, herniated and bulging discs, and
       a rotator cuﬀ tear. In October 2020, Weidlich had a hearing before
       an administrative law judge (ALJ) where Weidlich, his wife, and a
       vocational expert testiﬁed.
              In November 2020, the ALJ issued a decision. The ALJ ap-
       plied the ﬁve-step sequential evaluation process in
       20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) 2 to determine whether Weidlich was

       1 Both parties consented to a magistrate judge to conduct a trial and enter a

       final judgment.
       2 The steps ask whether the claimant (1) is engaged in substantial gainful activ-

       ity; (2) has a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of im-
       pairments; (3) has an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment and
       meets the duration requirements; (4) can perform past relevant work, in light
       of the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) determination; and (5) can
USCA11 Case: 22-13309        Document: 20-1        Date Filed: 11/20/2023        Page: 3 of 7

       22-13309                  Opinion of the Court                              3

       disabled and found the following. First, Weidlich had not engaged
       in substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date. Second,
       Weidlich had two severe impairments: spine disorders and dysfunc-
       tion of the major joints. Third, Weidlich did not have impairments
       that met or equaled the severity of an impairment listed in 20
       C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Rather, after considering
       all the evidence, the ALJ found that Weidlich had the residual func-
       tional capacity (RFC) to perform “light work” except he could fre-
       quently climb ramps and stairs; occasionally climb ladders, ropes,
       and scaﬀolds; frequently balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl;
       and was limited to frequent in any direction with his left arm.
              In determining Weidlich’s RFC, the ALJ considered all the
       evidence. This included (1) Weidlich’s testimony detailing his pain
       following an accident in October 2018; (2) state agency consultants
       Dr. Phil Matar’s and Dr. David Guttman’s medical opinions, which
       the ALJ found supported by the medical evidence, generally con-
       sistent with the record, and generally persuasive; and (3) the medi-
       cal opinion of Dr. Frederick McClimans, Weidlich’s treating physi-
       cian, which the ALJ found to be supported by an August 2019 eval-
       uation, partially consistent with the record, and also generally per-
       suasive.
             At step four, the ALJ found that Weidlich was unable to per-
       form any past relevant work as a construction worker. At step ﬁve,

       make an adjustment to other work, in light of her RFC, age, education, and
       work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v); Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc.
       Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011).
USCA11 Case: 22-13309     Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 11/20/2023    Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-13309

       the ALJ asked the vocational expert whether jobs existed in the na-
       tional economy for an individual with Weidlich’s age, education,
       work experience, and RFC. The vocational expert testiﬁed that
       Weidlich could work as a laundry sorter, potato chip sorter, and
       bottle label inspector. Accordingly, the ALJ found that Weidlich
       could make a successful adjustment to other work that existed in
       signiﬁcant numbers in the national economy, and therefore
       Weidlich was not disabled from his alleged onset date through the
       decision date.
              Weidlich sought review of the Commissioner’s decision in
       the District Court. In a joint memorandum, Weidlich argued that
       the ALJ inadequately evaluated Dr. McClimans’s medical opinion.
       The magistrate judge aﬃrmed the Commissioner’s decision, ﬁnd-
       ing that (1) Weidlich failed to show that the ALJ erred in evaluating
       Dr. McClimans’s opinion and (2) substantial evidence supported
       the ALJ’s RFC assessment. Weidlich timely appealed.
                                        II.
               We review a social security disability case to determine
       whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s deci-
       sion and review de novo whether the correct legal standards were
       applied. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per
       curiam). Substantial evidence is any relevant evidence greater than
       a scintilla that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to sup-
       port a conclusion. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir.
       1997). If substantial evidence supports the conclusion, we must af-
       ﬁrm the ALJ’s decision, even if the evidence preponderates against
USCA11 Case: 22-13309      Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 11/20/2023    Page: 5 of 7

       22-13309               Opinion of the Court                         5

       it. Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158–59 (11th Cir.
       2004) (per curiam). We may not decide the facts anew, make cred-
       ibility determinations, or reweigh the evidence. Winschel v. Comm’r
       of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011).
                                        III.
               Weidlich argues that the Commissioner’s decision should be
       reversed because the ALJ inadequately evaluated Dr. McClimans’s
       medical opinion. Speciﬁcally, Weidlich challenges the ALJ’s RFC
       assessment, asserting that the ALJ failed to incorporate Dr. McCli-
       mans’s opinion, which the ALJ found generally persuasive and sup-
       ported. Despite agreeing with Dr. McClimans’s opinion that
       Weidlich “could never lift more than 10 pounds,” the ALJ found
       that Weidlich could perform “light work,” which involves lifting up
       to twenty pounds. Weidlich challenges the ALJ‘s failure to explain
       this inconsistency. We agree with Weidlich that the ALJ committed
       reversible error by not providing a clear explanation for not adopt-
       ing the limitations outlined in Dr. McClimans’s opinion.
              Dr. McClimans opined that Weidlich could infrequently lift
       up to ten pounds, occasionally lift up to ﬁve pounds, and never lift
       more than ten pounds. The ALJ found this opinion generally per-
       suasive, supported by an August 2019 evaluation, and partially con-
       sistent with the overall medical records. The ALJ noted a need for
       “slightly greater limitations” due to ongoing mild weakness in
       Weidlich’s left arm and neck pain, as well as “additional postural
       and environmental limitations” from orthopedic complaints, in-
       cluding residuals of right knee arthroscopic repair. Despite these
USCA11 Case: 22-13309         Document: 20-1        Date Filed: 11/20/2023         Page: 6 of 7

       6                         Opinion of the Court                       22-13309

       ﬁndings, the ALJ concluded that Weidlich had the RFC for “light
       work,” which involves lifting up to 20 pounds. See 20 C.F.R.
       § 404.1567(b).
               Social Security Ruling 96-8p (SSR 96-8p) provides that the
       ALJ must explain and address any conﬂicts between the RFC and
       medical opinions. See SSR 96–8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7 ( July 2,
       1996). 3 The ALJ’s RFC assessment conﬂicts with Dr. McClimans’s
       medical opinion, and the absence of a clear explanation violates
       SSR 96-8p and constitutes reversible error. See Owens v. Heckler, 748
       F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). Substantial evidence
       cannot support the ALJ’s decision without a clear explanation. See
       Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981).
              While the ALJ hinted at the state agency consultants’ opin-
       ions being more supported, the overall inconsistency in the ALJ’s
       ﬁnding remains unclear. Especially given that the ALJ found Dr.
       McClimans’s opinion equally persuasive and that even “slightly
       greater limitations” than those stated in Dr. McClimans’s opinion
       were warranted. So despite potential rationale, the absence of a
       clear explanation renders the ALJ’s RFC assessment unsupported
       by substantial evidence. See Cowart, 662 F.2d at 735.

       3 Social security rulings are binding on the SSA.  Noble v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
       963 F.3d 1317, 1324 n.12 (11th Cir. 2020). While they do not bind us, we afford
       them deference. Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-13309     Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 11/20/2023   Page: 7 of 7

       22-13309              Opinion of the Court                       7

                                       IV.
              The District Court’s decision is REVERSED, and the action
       is REMANDED to the District Court with instructions to remand
       to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The
       ALJ must explain in writing why he did not adopt the limitations in
       Dr. McClimans’s medical opinion. Alternatively, the ALJ may reas-
       sess Weidlich’s RFC and, if necessary, submit a new hypothetical
       question to a vocational expert to determine whether jobs exist in
       the national economy for an individual with Weidlich’s age, educa-
       tion, work experience, and RFC. We emphasize that no result is
       dictated by our remand.