Court Opinion

ID: 9911291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 20:01:44.089657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:09.157908
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10210    Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 12/19/2023   Page: 1 of 16

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-10210
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        LINDA TRIMBLE,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

                                                     Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Alabama
                      D.C. Docket No. 4:21-cv-01672-ACA
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10210     Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 12/19/2023    Page: 2 of 16

        2                     Opinion of the Court                23-10210

        Before WILSON, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               This case involves the Social Security Administration’s
        (“SSA”) denial of Linda Trimble’s claim for supplemental security
        income (“SSI”) disability benefits for the time period of September
        15, 2015, to February 2, 2017. The Administrative Law Judge
        (“ALJ”) for the SSA initially determined that Trimble was disabled,
        with a disability onset date of February 2, 2017, rather than
        September 15, 2015, as Trimble alleged in her application for
        benefits. On appeal, the district court remanded the case to the ALJ
        because the district court determined that there was insufficient
        evidence supporting the ALJ’s determination of Trimble’s
        disability onset date. On remand, after hearing additional medical
        testimony, the ALJ again found that February 2, 2017, was the
        appropriate onset date. The district court affirmed the ALJ’s
        decision. Trimble now argues that the ALJ violated the district
        court’s mandate and the law of the case doctrine by determining
        that her disability onset date was February 2, 2017. She also argues
        that the ALJ’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence.
        After review, we affirm.
                                I.    Background
              In February 2015, Trimble applied for SSI disability benefits
        with an alleged onset date of July 1, 2014. Although it is unclear
        from the record exactly what happened with that application, it
        appears that while it was pending, Trimble filed another
USCA11 Case: 23-10210       Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 12/19/2023      Page: 3 of 16

        23-10210                Opinion of the Court                          3

        application for SSI benefits in September 2015, alleging a disability
        onset date of September 15, 2015—this application is the focus of
        this appeal. In support of her application, Trimble submitted a
        disability report in which she indicated that “lower back pain” and
        “nerve damage from [her] back to [her] feet” limited her ability to
        work. She also submitted a function report in which she stated that
        her condition made it difficult to sleep well at night and to get out
        of bed. The report also stated that she needed help dressing and
        bathing herself; that she could not stand too long because of
        swelling in her feet; and that her condition affected her ability to
        lift, squat, bend, stand, reach, walk, sit, kneel, and climb stairs. The
        SSA denied her claims, so she requested a hearing before an ALJ.
               In February 2017, the ALJ conducted a hearing on Trimble’s
        claim. Trimble testified that she was in a lot of pain, was forced to
        use a walker to ambulate, and she could barely sit or stand without
        pain.
               The medical evidence before the ALJ was as follows. In
        2008, Trimble saw Dr. Norman Rahn to report a lower back injury.
        Dr. Rahn performed an x-ray and noted that Trimble’s lumbar
        spine appeared normal. In 2014, Dr. James White, a neurosurgeon,
        diagnosed Trimble with a herniated lumbar 4 disc with stenosis and
        conducted surgery. After the surgery, Trimble reported to Dr.
        White that she was having soreness in her back and leg, and a
        burning pain in her foot.
              On April 8, 2015, Trimble visited Dr. Zakir Khan for her
        social security disability determination exam.      Dr. Khan
USCA11 Case: 23-10210        Document: 24-1        Date Filed: 12/19/2023   Page: 4 of 16

        4                         Opinion of the Court                23-10210

        determined that Trimble had an ability to perform fine motor skills
        and to stand, carry, handle objects, hear, speak, and travel, but that
        her ability to sit, walk or lift for an extended period of time may be
        impaired. One day later, Dr. Marcus Whitman evaluated Trimble
        and determined that Trimble was able to perform light work and
        was not disabled. 1
               In September 2015, Trimble began seeing a different
        Neurosurgeon, Dr. Terry Andrade. She elected to have another
        back surgery, which was conducted in October 2015. She
        continued to report pain after the surgery. In July and August 2016,
        Trimble visited Dr. Jeremy Barlow, who administered epidural
        injections. She then visited Dr. Luc Frenette who administered
        additional epidurals. The epidurals only provided temporary relief.
        In January 2017, Dr. Frenette noted that Trimble had some
        tenderness, showed visible signs of pain, and that she required
        some assistance to rise from a seated position. However, Dr.
        Frenette also noted that Trimble had normal station and gait,
        normal movement in all extremities, and normal flexion and
        extension.
               On February 2, 2017, Trimble visited Dr. Jarrod Warren for
        a medical evaluation. Dr. Warren noted that “[g]iven [Trimble’s]
        history of gradual worsening symptoms, as well as lack of response
        to surgical interventions, it is anticipated that her back pain will
        continue to worsen.” Dr. Warren also completed a physical

        1 Dr. Khan’s and Dr. Whitman’s evaluations were conducted in connection

        with Trimble’s February 2015 application for benefits.
USCA11 Case: 23-10210     Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 12/19/2023    Page: 5 of 16

        23-10210              Opinion of the Court                       5

        capacities evaluation in which he noted that Trimble could sit
        upright in a standard chair for 15-30 minutes; could stand for 15
        minutes; would be lying down or sleeping for 6-7 hours of an 8-
        hour day; would be off-task for 75% of an 8-hour day; and would
        be likely to miss 30 days in a 30 day period due to her physical
        symptoms. He also noted that these limitations dated back to
        September 11, 2015.
                Additionally, at the hearing before the ALJ, a vocational
        expert, Dr. Jewell Euto, testified as to Trimble’s work history,
        which included past work as a packager (a medium-exertion
        unskilled job); a cleaner (a light-exertion unskilled job); and a
        poultry hanger (a medium-exertion unskilled job). The ALJ then
        asked Dr. Euto about the work limitations of two hypothetical
        individuals. The first hypothetical individual could perform light
        exertion, but not climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, could
        occasionally climb ramps or stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch,
        or crawl, and who would need the use of a walker while
        ambulating. The second hypothetical individual had no limitation
        on lifting and carrying but could only stand up to 15 minutes at a
        time, sit between 15 to 30 minutes at a time, perform work activity
        for 15 to 30 minutes at a time, and would need to lie down or be
        seated between 6 to 7 hours in an 8-hour day. Dr. Euto stated that
        the first individual would only be able to perform sedentary
        work—not any of the three jobs identified in Trimble’s work
        experience. As to the second individual, Dr. Euto stated that no
        work was available.
USCA11 Case: 23-10210        Document: 24-1       Date Filed: 12/19/2023       Page: 6 of 16

        6                        Opinion of the Court                    23-10210

               In January 2018, the ALJ issued a partially favorable decision
        to Trimble, granting disability benefits with an onset date of
        February 2, 2017. The ALJ applied the five step-sequential
        approach as required by 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). See 20 C.F.R. §
        416.920(a)(4). At step one, the ALJ determined that Trimble had
        not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 15,
        2015. At step two, the ALJ concluded that Trimble had two severe
        impairments: lumbar degenerative disc disease and peripheral
        neuropathy. At step three, the ALJ concluded that Trimble’s
        impairments did not meet or medically equal the severity of one of
        the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525,
        404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926. At step four, the ALJ
        concluded that, prior to February 2, 2017, Trimble had the ability
        to perform light work as defined by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) and
        416.967(b). 2 At step five, the ALJ concluded that, beginning on
        February 2, 2017, there are no jobs that existed in significant
        numbers in the national economy that Trimble could perform.

        2 In reaching the conclusion, at step four, that Trimble could perform light
        work prior to February 2, 2017, the ALJ considered the medical evidence and
        Trimble’s symptoms. The ALJ concluded that Trimble’s statements about the
        intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her impairments were
        inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. The ALJ gave good weight
        to Dr. Khan’s report, which did not specifically define any limitations for
        Trimble. And the ALJ gave significant weight to Dr. Warren’s report in
        reaching the conclusion that, as of February 2, 2017, there were no jobs in
        significant numbers in the national economy for Trimble to perform.
USCA11 Case: 23-10210      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 12/19/2023     Page: 7 of 16

        23-10210               Opinion of the Court                         7

        Thus, the ALJ determined that Trimble was disabled beginning on
        February 2, 2017, and entitled to benefits.
               Trimble appealed the ALJ’s decision to the SSA’s Appeals
        Council (“AC”), arguing that the ALJ’s finding that she was not
        disabled before February 2, 2017, was not based on substantial
        evidence and that the ALJ failed to apply appropriate legal
        standards. The AC denied Trimble’s request for review.
                Trimble then appealed to the district court. The district
        court agreed that the ALJ failed to explain his reasoning for
        determining that Trimble’s disability onset date was February 2,
        2017—the date of Dr. Warren’s medical evaluation—and not
        before then as alleged by Trimble in her application. Because of
        the progressive nature of Trimble’s condition, the district court
        concluded that the ALJ needed to discuss why the onset date was
        not sooner. The district court remanded the case to the SSA to
        make an onset date determination based on the advice of a medical
        expert. The AC sent the case back to the ALJ, affirming the ALJ’s
        initial finding that Trimble was disabled beginning February 2,
        2017, and entitled to benefits as of that date, but it ordered the ALJ
        to determine whether she was disabled before that date.
                The ALJ held its second hearing on October 2, 2020. Dr.
        Jaslow, a medical expert, testified that there were no objective
        reasons for Trimble’s alleged limitations between September 2015
        and February 2, 2017. He stated that Trimble had the capacity to
        lift 15 pounds frequently and 25 pounds occasionally; could stand
        and walk six hours a day; could sit for seven hours a day with
USCA11 Case: 23-10210      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 12/19/2023     Page: 8 of 16

        8                      Opinion of the Court                23-10210

        breaks; could frequently climb ramps, stairs, and ladders; and could
        occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. Dr. Jaslow based his
        conclusion, in part, on the fact that, if Trimble was truly unable to
        walk as much as she said she was, she would be experiencing severe
        disuse atrophy in her lower extremities, which was contrary to
        multiple examinations showing her ambulation was normal. Dr.
        Jaslow further testified that, based on an Electromyography test
        that was conducted in 2019, he believed that polyneuropathy
        caused the pain in Trimble’s lower extremities rather than the
        spinal disorder. And because Trimble had no motor weakness, this
        was not a severe impairment.
               A vocational expert, Dr. Sabrina Singleton, testified. The
        ALJ asked Dr. Singleton to evaluate the work limitations of a
        hypothetical individual who could lift and carry 25 pounds
        occasionally, could lift and carry 15 pounds frequently, could stand
        or walk in combination for a total of six hours in an eight-hour day,
        and could stand for a total of seven hours in an eight-hour day. Dr.
        Singleton concluded that such an individual could perform work as
        a meat packer and a poultry hanger—two jobs that Trimble had
        previously held—as well as three light exertion jobs that she had
        not previously performed.
                In December 2020, the ALJ denied Trimble’s application,
        concluding that she was not disabled from September 15, 2015, to
        February 2, 2017. The ALJ conducted the same five-step analysis
        that it conducted in its 2017 denial. The ALJ concluded that, based
        on the medical evidence and Trimble’s symptoms for the time
USCA11 Case: 23-10210      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 12/19/2023     Page: 9 of 16

        23-10210               Opinion of the Court                        9

        period in question, Trimble had the capacity to perform medium
        work as defined in §§ 404.1567(c) and 416.967(c) with some minor
        limitations. Thus, the ALJ concluded that Trimble was capable of
        making a successful adjustment to other work that existed in
        significant numbers in the national economy from September 15,
        2015, through February 2, 2017. Consequently, the ALJ
        determined that she was not disabled during the referenced time
        period, and he denied Trimble’s claim.
                In reaching his conclusion, the ALJ afforded various weight
        to the different medical evidence. The ALJ afforded some weight
        to Dr. Whitman’s evaluation, which concluded that Trimble
        would be able to perform work at the light exertional level. The
        ALJ afforded good weight to Dr. Khan’s April 2015 evaluation,
        which stated that Trimble would be able to stand, carry, and handle
        objects but may have difficulty sitting, walking, or lifting for
        extended periods of time. The ALJ afforded “lesser weight” to Dr.
        Warren’s opinion of Trimble’s functional limitations because Dr.
        Warren was not an orthopedic surgeon and his opinion was
        inconsistent with the medical findings. The ALJ afforded
        significant weight to Dr. Jaslow’s testimony because Dr. Jaslow
        considered the evidence in its entirety, was a board-certified
        orthopedic surgeon, and his testimony was subject to cross-
        examination in a recorded hearing.
               Trimble appealed the ALJ’s decision to the AC, which again
        denied her appeal. Trimble then filed a complaint in federal district
        court against the Commissioner of the SSA, alleging that the ALJ’s
USCA11 Case: 23-10210      Document: 24-1       Date Filed: 12/19/2023      Page: 10 of 16

        10                      Opinion of the Court                   23-10210

        denial of disability benefits to her was not supported by substantial
        evidence. Further, she argued that the ALJ’s decision violated the
        law of the case doctrine along with the mandates of the AC and the
        district court. The district court disagreed and affirmed the ALJ’s
        decision. Trimble appealed.
                                II.    DISCUSSION
                On appeal, Trimble argues that the ALJ’s decision violated
        the mandate of the district court and the law of the case doctrine.
        Trimble also argues that the ALJ’s finding that the disability onset
        date was February 2, 2017 (meaning that she was not disabled prior
        to that date), was not supported by substantial evidence. We
        address each argument in turn and conclude (1) that the ALJ did
        not violate the mandate of the district court or the law of the case
        doctrine and (2) that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding
        of a disability onset date of February 2, 2017.
               A. Whether the ALJ’s decision violated the mandate of the district
               court or the law of the case doctrine.
               Trimble argues that “the law of the case consists of the
        findings and conclusions of the [d]istrict [c]ourt [on her first
        appeal], the [AC’s] remand order, and the non-vacated portion of
        the ALJ’s [first] decision.” Specifically, she states that the following
        findings are the law of the case: (1) Trimble was disabled as of
        February 2, 2017; (2) her condition was constantly deteriorating;
        and (3) there is nothing in the record indicating that her condition
        worsened to the point of being a disability on February 2, 2017, as
        opposed to an earlier date. Trimble argues that the ALJ violated
USCA11 Case: 23-10210      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 12/19/2023      Page: 11 of 16

        23-10210                Opinion of the Court                         11

        the district court’s mandate and the law of the case doctrine by
        determining an onset date of February 2, 2017, without explaining
        why that date was correct as opposed to an earlier date.
                We review whether the ALJ has complied with a remand
        order and the application of the law of the case doctrine de novo.
        See Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 885–86 (1989); Transamerica
        Leasing, Inc. v. Inst. of London Underwriters, 430 F.3d 1326, 1331 (11th
        Cir. 2005). Under the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court’s
        findings of fact and conclusions of law are binding in all subsequent
        proceedings in the same case, whether in the trial court or on a
        later appeal. This That And The Other Gift And Tobacco, Inc. v. Cobb
        Cnty., 439 F.3d 1275, 1283 (11th Cir. 2006). The mandate rule, a
        specific application of the law of the case doctrine, requires
        compliance on remand with the appellate court’s instructions and
        forecloses relitigation of any issue that the appellate court expressly
        or impliedly decided. See Cambridge Univ. Press v. Albert, 906 F.3d
        1290, 1299 (11th Cir. 2018). “Deviation from the [district] court’s
        remand order in the subsequent administrative proceedings is []
        legal error, subject to reversal on further judicial review.” Sullivan,
        490 U.S. at 886. However, the ALJ has a basic obligation to develop
        a full and fair record. Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th
        Cir. 1981). We have not decided whether the law of the case or
        mandate rules apply in social security cases. See Weidner v. Comm’r
        of Soc. Sec., 81 F.4th 1341, 1345 (11th Cir. 2023).
               Here, assuming that the mandate rule and law of the case
        doctrine apply to social security cases, the ALJ did not violate
USCA11 Case: 23-10210     Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 12/19/2023     Page: 12 of 16

        12                     Opinion of the Court                 23-10210

        either. Trimble misreads the district court’s remand order as
        necessarily requiring the ALJ to find her disabled at some point
        prior to February 2, 2017. In Trimble’s view, the remand required
        the ALJ to determine when she became disabled before February 2,
        2017, not if she became disabled before February 2, 2017. But the
        express mandate of the district court was for “the ALJ to make an
        onset date determination based on the advice of a medical expert.”
        Indeed, as the district court correctly pointed out, the remand
        order “did not expressly or impliedly require the ALJ to assign a
        different onset date—only that he make the onset date
        determination with the assistance of a medical expert.” The ALJ
        complied with this mandate by consulting Dr. Jaslow.
                With respect to Trimble’s law of the case argument more
        generally, Trimble fails to show how the ALJ violated this doctrine.
        She claims the district court’s statement in her first appeal that the
        medical records did not clearly indicate that her condition
        worsened on February 2, 2017, as opposed to some earlier date, is
        law of the case. She is incorrect. In context, the district court was
        simply explaining the error that the ALJ needed to correct on
        remand to satisfy the ALJ’s obligation to develop a full and fair
        record. And with the supplement of Dr. Jaslow’s testimony, the
        record was developed sufficiently for the ALJ’s determination that
        she was not disabled before February 2, 2017. Nor are we
        persuaded by Trimble’s argument that the ALJ departed from the
        district court’s finding that Trimble’s condition was constantly
        deteriorating. This finding is not mutually exclusive with the ALJ’s
USCA11 Case: 23-10210        Document: 24-1        Date Filed: 12/19/2023        Page: 13 of 16

        23-10210                  Opinion of the Court                             13

        determination that Trimble’s condition did not worsen to the point
        of a disability until February 2, 2017. 3
               B. Whether the ALJ’s implied finding that Trimble’s disability
               onset date was February 2, 2017, is supported by substantial
               evidence.
              Trimble also argues that the ALJ’s finding that her disability
        onset date was February 2, 2017, is not supported by substantial
        evidence. She argues that Dr. Jaslow’s medical testimony was
        flawed because he relied on medical records outside of the relevant
        time frame. Thus, she argues his testimony should not have
        overridden Dr. Warren’s medical evaluation indicating that she
        was disabled in September 2015.
              In a social security case, we review the agency’s legal
        conclusions de novo, and its factual findings by determining
        whether they are supported by substantial evidence. Ingram v.
        Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007).
        Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant
        evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to
        support a conclusion. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176,
        1178 (11th Cir. 2011). When an ALJ denies benefits and the AC

        3 Trimble also argues that the ALJ violated the law of the case doctrine by

        making findings as to her impairment through February 2, 2017, instead of
        through February 1, 2017. The SSA argues that this was a scrivener’s error.
        We agree. While at one point the ALJ did state that Trimble was not under a
        disability through February 2, 2017, the ALJ then correctly stated, at the end
        of the opinion, that Trimble was not under a disability through February 1,
        2017.
USCA11 Case: 23-10210      Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 12/19/2023     Page: 14 of 16

        14                     Opinion of the Court                  23-10210

        denies review, we review the ALJ’s decision as the Commissioner’s
        final decision. Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001).
        We may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or
        substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. Winschel,
        631 F.3d at 1178.
               To determine whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ
        considers medical opinions from acceptable medical sources,
        including physicians. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.902(a)(1), 416.913(a)(2). A
        medical opinion is a statement from a medical source about what
        a claimant can do despite her impairments and whether she has an
        impairment-related limitation. Id. § 416.913(a)(2). For claims filed
        before March 27, 2017, the SSA is required to give a treating
        physician’s opinion more weight unless there was good cause to
        discount it.      20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see 20 C.F.R.
        § 404.1527(c)(2).
                An ALJ “must state with particularity the weight given to
        different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” Winschel, 631
        F.3d at 1179. And an ALJ may not improperly substitute his
        judgment of the claimant’s condition for that of the medical and
        vocational experts. Freeman v. Schweiker, 681 F.2d 727, 731 (11th
        Cir. 1982). In addition to determining that an individual is disabled,
        the ALJ must also establish the onset date of disability, by
        consulting the applicant’s allegations, work history, and medical
        and other evidence. SSR 18-1p.
             Here, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that
        Trimble was not disabled from September 15, 2015, through
USCA11 Case: 23-10210     Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 12/19/2023    Page: 15 of 16

        23-10210              Opinion of the Court                       15

        February 1, 2017. As an initial matter, because Trimble’s claim was
        ﬁled before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to give Trimble’s
        treating physician’s evaluation more weight unless there was good
        cause to discount it. § 404.1527(d)(2); see § 404.1527(c)(2). But
        Trimble’s treating physicians gave inconsistent evaluations and as
        a result, the ALJ afforded their opinions less weight.
               For example, Dr. Warren’s evaluation on February 2, 2017,
        indicated that Trimble had a much more severe medical condition
        than any of Trimble’s other treating physicians had diagnosed her
        with over the preceding years. While Dr. Warren stated that
        Trimble’s condition required her to be lying down or sleeping for
        6-7 hours of an 8-hour day, Dr. Frenette’s evaluation just a month
        earlier stated that Trimble had normal station and gait, normal
        movement in all extremities, and normal flexion and extension. As
        Dr. Jaslow pointed out, if Trimble was walking as little as she had
        indicated, she would have had severe disuse atrophy in her lower
        extremities. And none of the medical reports were indicative of
        disuse atrophy. Thus, Dr. Warren’s evaluation that Trimble was
        disabled as early as September 15, 2015, was discounted by the fact
        that his evaluation was inconsistent with the objective medical
        evaluations for the period prior to his evaluation on February 2,
        2017. The ALJ further discounted Dr. Warren’s evaluation based
        on the fact that he was not an orthopedic surgeon.
              On the other hand, the ALJ was justified in giving significant
        weight to Dr. Jaslow’s opinion. Dr. Jaslow was an orthopedic
        surgeon and was able to consider the full medical record, and was
USCA11 Case: 23-10210     Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 12/19/2023    Page: 16 of 16

        16                    Opinion of the Court                23-10210

        appointed on remand for the sole purpose of assisting the ALJ in
        determining the proper onset date. Dr. Jaslow’s testimony is not
        discounted by the fact that he relied on medical opinions outside of
        the relevant time period, as we have recognized that such opinions
        may be informative of the condition of the individual during the
        relevant time period. See Washington v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r,
        806 F.3d 1317, 1322 (11th Cir. 2015).
               Overall, the ALJ had more than a scintilla of evidence to
        support his finding that Trimble was not disabled prior to February
        2, 2017. See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178. Thus, his determination
        was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm.
              AFFIRMED.