MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

KATHERINE P. NELSON, Magistrate Judge.

Social Security Claimant/Plaintiff Andrew Cooke has brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") denying his protective application for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. By the consent of the parties (see Doc. 25), the Court has designated the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of judgment in this civil action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and S.D. Ala. GenLR 73. (See Doc. 28).

Upon consideration of the parties' briefs (Docs. 14, 15, 21, 23) and the administrative record (Doc. 13) (hereinafter cited as "(R. [page number(s)])"),1 the Court finds that the Commissioner's decision is due to be REVERSED and REMANDED.

I. Procedural Background

Cooke protectively filed an applications for DIB with the Social Security Administration ("SSA") on August 18, 2011, alleging disability beginning December 26, 2008.2 (R. 169-170). After his application was initially denied, Cooke requested a hearing, which was held before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") for the SSA on December 10, 2012. (R. 35). On March 14, 2013, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on Cooke's application, finding him "not disabled" under the Social Security Act. (See R. 33-50). Cooke requested review of the ALJ's decision by the Appeals Council for the SSA's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review and submitted additional evidence in support of his application. The Commissioner's decision on Cooke's DIB application became final when the Appeals Council denied Cooke's request for review on October 20, 2014. (R. 1-5). On December 17, 2014, Cooke filed this action under § 405(g) for judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision. (Doc. 1). See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ("Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, irrespective of the amount in controversy, may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commenced within sixty days after the mailing to him of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may allow."); Ingram v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2007) ("The settled law of this Circuit is that a court may review, under sentence four of section 405(g), a denial of review by the Appeals Council.").

II. Standard of Review

"In Social Security appeals, [the Court] must determine whether the Commissioner's decision is "`supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards. 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) (quoting Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997))). However, the Court "`may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the [Commissioner].'" Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983))). "`Even if the evidence preponderates against the [Commissioner]'s factual findings, we must affirm if the decision reached is supported by substantial evidence.'" Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1260 (quoting Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)).

"Yet, within this narrowly circumscribed role, [courts] do not act as automatons. [The court] must scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the decision reached is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence[.]" Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1239 (citations and quotation omitted). "In determining whether substantial evidence exists, [a court] must...tak[e] into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the [Commissioner's] decision." Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). Moreover, "[t]here is no presumption...that the Commissioner followed the appropriate legal standards in deciding a claim for benefits or that the legal conclusions reached were valid. Instead, [the court] conduct[s] `an exacting examination' of these factors." Miles v. Chater, 84 F.3d 1397, 1400 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (citing Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)) (internal citation omitted). In sum, courts "review the Commissioner's factual findings with deference and the Commissioner's legal conclusions with close scrutiny." Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001). See also Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) ("In Social Security appeals, we review de novo the legal principles upon which the Commissioner's decision is based. Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986). However, we review the resulting decision only to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence. Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158-59 (11th Cir. 2004)."). "`The [Commissioner]'s failure to apply the correct law or to provide the reviewing court with sufficient reasoning for determining that the proper legal analysis has been conducted mandates reversal.'" Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1260 (quoting Cornelius v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1143, 1145-46 (11th Cir. 1991)).

Thornton v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 597 F. App'x 604, 609 (11th Cir. Feb. 11, 2015) (per curiam) (unpublished).3

Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v); Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1237-39).4

"These regulations place a very heavy burden on the claimant to demonstrate both a qualifying disability and an inability to perform past relevant work." Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211 (citing Spencer v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 1090, 1093 (11th Cir. 1985)). "In determining whether the claimant has satisfied this initial burden, the examiner must consider four factors: (1) objective medical facts or clinical findings; (2) the diagnoses of examining physicians; (3) evidence of pain; and (4) the claimant's age, education, and work history." Jones v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 1001, 1005 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (citing Tieniber v. Heckler, 720 F.2d 1251, 1253 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam)). "These factors must be considered both singly and in combination. Presence or absence of a single factor is not, in itself, conclusive." Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1240 (citations omitted).

If, in Steps One through Four of the five-step evaluation, a claimant proves that he or she has a qualifying disability and cannot do his or her past relevant work, it then becomes the Commissioner's burden, at Step Five, to prove that the claimant is capable—given his or her age, education, and work history—of engaging in another kind of substantial gainful employment that exists in the national economy. Jones v. Apfel, 190 F.3d 1224, 1228 (11th Cir. 1999); Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 836 (11th Cir. 1985). Finally, but importantly, although the "claimant bears the burden of demonstrating the inability to return to [his or] her past relevant work, the Commissioner of Social Security has an obligation to develop a full and fair record." Shnorr v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 578, 581 (11th Cir. 1987). "This is an onerous task, as the ALJ must scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all relevant facts. In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must consider the evidence as a whole." Henry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 802 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citation and quotation omitted).

"When no new evidence is presented to the Appeals Council and it denies review, then the administrative law judge's decision is necessarily reviewed as the final decision of the Commissioner, but when a claimant properly presents new evidence to the Appeals Council, a reviewing court must consider whether that new evidence renders the denial of benefits erroneous." Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1262.

III. Claims on Judicial Review

(Doc. 15 at 1).

IV. Analysis

A. Claim 1

Cooke alleges disability beginning December 26, 2008, which is the date he was admitted to a hospital due to suffering a "possible" seizure while engaged in his former job of driving a school bus. (R. 41). The ALJ found from the record evidence that Cooke showed "no more seizure activity" after that one reported episode. Cooke does not challenge this finding on appeal, nor does he challenge any of the ALJ's findings regarding his physical impairments, only his mental impairments.

After conducting an examination of Cooke on November 19, 2012, Dr. Goff diagnosed him with "adjustment disorder with depressed mood," "moderate to severe reading disorder," "disorder of written expression," and "borderline intellectual functioning." (R. 429). Dr. Goff also commented that Cooke's "cognitive deficits are problematic and represent interfering factors in regard to vocational activity" and that "[h]is depression at this point represents a severe impairment." (R. 429). Additionally, Dr. Goff completed a Medical Source Opinion Form (Mental), dated November 21, 2012, opining that Cooke had "extreme" limitations in his ability to respond to customary work pressures and to maintain attention, concentration, or pace for periods of at least two hours in a routine work setting, and "marked" limitations in his ability to deal with change in a routine work setting.5 (R. 430). Dr. Goff's opinion was that the same level of severity existed as early as 2009 and that the limitations he assigned lasted or could be expected to last for 12 months or longer. (R. 431).

At Step One, the ALJ determined that Cooke had "not engaged in substantial gainful activity since December 26, 2008, the alleged onset date." (R. 37). At Step Two, the ALJ determined that Cooke had the following severe impairments: mild coronary artery disease, and one possible seizure episode on December 26, 2008, without subsequent seizure activity. (R. 37). The ALJ noted at Step Two that Dr. Goff had suggested "mental impairments of adjustment disorder with some depressed mood; possible disorder of written expression; and possible borderline intellectual functioning." (R. 38). However, the ALJ expressed skepticism of the severity of Dr. Goff's assessment, concluding that, while Cooke "might suffer some mental impairment[,]" "per the totality of the evidence, his mental impairments appear to be slight abnormalities that — if they exist at all — cause little, if any, limitation in [Cooke's] ability to perform mental work activity" and "are therefore nonsevere." (R. 38). At Step Three, the ALJ found that Cooke did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments. (R. 40).

Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1238-39 (footnote omitted).

The ALJ determined that Cooke had the RFC "to perform the full range of medium work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c)."6 (R. 40). In formulating this RFC, the ALJ found that Dr. Goff's "assessment of limitations" in the Medical Source Opinion Form was "so contrary to the subjective, medical, and objective evidence of record that it does not merit weight." (R. 47). "As to the remainder of the assessment, the [ALJ] reluctantly allowed for some slight abnormality with slight limitation in [Cooke's] ability to perform mental work activity" but determined "[t]here is no more than nonsevere mental impairment." (R. 48). The ALJ then determined that Cooke was able to perform past relevant work as a bus driver, fish machine feeder, and street cleaner, or, in the alternative, that there are other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Cooke can also perform, thus determining that Cooke was not disabled. (R. 49-50).7

Cooke asserts that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's decision to give no weight to Dr. Goff's opinions. "`Medical opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s), including [the claimant's] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant's] physical or mental restrictions.'" Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178-79 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2)). "There are three tiers of medical opinion sources: (1) treating physicians; (2) nontreating, examining physicians; and (3) nontreating, nonexamining physicians." Himes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 585 F. App'x 758, 762 (11th Cir. Sept. 26, 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2), 416.927(c)(1)-(2)). "In assessing medical opinions, the ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion, including (1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating physician's relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician's opinion; (4) how consistent the physician's opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the physician's specialization. These factors apply to both examining and non-examining physicians." Eyre v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 586 F. App'x 521, 523 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & (e), 416.927(c) & (e)). "[T]he ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor." Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (citing Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam)). However, the ALJ "may reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion." Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1240. Accord, e.g., Anderson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 427 F. App'x 761, 763 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished).8

There is no denying that the ALJ expressed some suspicion of Dr. Goff's opinion because he assessed Cooke "at the behest of [Cooke]'s representative..." (R. 38. See also R. 46 ("Nonetheless, and somewhat incredulously, the claimant's representative directed him to a third party consultative psychological evaluation[ by Dr. Goff].")). Cooke selectively quotes in support a Ninth Circuit decision, Reddick v. Chater, for the proposition that "the mere fact that a medical report is provided at the request of counsel or, more broadly, the purpose for which an opinion is provided, is not a legitimate basis for evaluating the reliability of the report." 157 F.3d 715, 726 (9th Cir. 1998). See also Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 832 (9th Cir. 1995) ("The purpose for which medical reports are obtained does not provide a legitimate basis for rejecting them. An examining doctor's findings are entitled to no less weight when the examination is procured by the claimant than when it is obtained by the Commissioner ... The Secretary may not assume that doctors routinely lie in order to help their patients collect disability benefits." (quotation marks omitted)); Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 560-61 (7th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

However, the very next sentence in Reddick states that "[e]vidence of the circumstances under which the report was obtained and its consistency with other records, reports, or findings could ... form a legitimate basis for evaluating the reliability of the report." 157 F.3d at 726. Reddick thus held that, "in the absence of other evidence to undermine the credibility of a medical report, the purpose for which the report was obtained does not provide a legitimate basis for rejecting it." Id. at 726 (emphasis added). Accord Coheley v. Colvin, No. 2:13-CV-1810-VEH, 2014 WL 6748991, at *4 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 1, 2014); Tavarez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 15-11860, at 12-13 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (per curiam) (unpublished) (citing Reddick, 157 F.3d at 726)). See also Hinton v. Massanari, 13 F. App'x 819, 824 (10th Cir. July 31, 2001) (unpublished) ("An ALJ may certainly question a doctor's credibility when the opinion, as here, was solicited by counsel. See, e.g., Saelee v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 522-23 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ justified in finding treating physician's `report untrustworthy because it was obtained solely for the purposes of the administrative hearing, varied from [physician]'s own treatment notes, and was worded ambiguously in an apparent attempt to assist [plaintiff] in obtaining social security benefits'). The ALJ may not automatically reject the opinion for that reason alone, however."); Gonzalez Perez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 812 F.2d 747, 749 (1st Cir. 1987) (per curiam) ("[T]he ALJ in this case discounted both reports for the additional reason that they had been obtained after the claim had been filed and on advice and referral of counsel. In our review of social security disability cases, it appears to be a quite common procedure to obtain further medical reports, after a claim is filed, in support of such a claim. Something more substantive than just the timing and impetus of medical reports obtained after a claim is filed must support an ALJ's decision to discredit them."). This holding is consistent with Eleventh Circuit law. See Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1240 (an ALJ "may reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion"); Hickel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 539 F. App'x 980, 987 (11th Cir. Oct. 28, 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished) ("[G]enerating evidence is the purpose of obtaining opinions from medical sources, whether paid for by the Commissioner or by the claimant ... The fact that Dr. Eastridge was a one-time consultative examiner retained by the claimant rather than the Commissioner is not, standing alone, a valid basis for rejecting his medical opinion.").

The ALJ did not reject Dr. Goff's assessment solely because it was obtained at the behest of Cooke's representative. The ALJ clearly considered other circumstances under which the report was obtained, Reddick, 157 F.3d at 726, noting that Dr. Goff's examination occurred "shortly before the [administrative ]hearing"9 and that it was "not the result of a treating physician's referral or the claimant's pursuit of mental healthcare." (R. 38). The ALJ was also clear to state his determination that "the medical and objective evidence of record strongly contradicts Dr. Goff's opinion" and that Dr. Goff's "assessment of limitations ... is so contrary to the subjective, medical, and objective evidence of record that it does not merit weight." (R. 38, 47). As he was required to do, the ALJ "state[d] with particularity the weight given to [Dr. Goff's] medical opinions and the reasons therefor." Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. The Court must now determine whether substantial evidence supports those reasons. The answer is "no."

The ALJ determined that "the medical and objective evidence of record strongly contradicts Dr. Goff's opinion" and "contains little evidence of depression let alone indication that the claimant is `very depressed' ..." (R. 38). However, Dr. Goff's Medical Source Opinion Form (R. 430-431) was accompanied by five-page evaluation report detailing the objective evidence Dr. Goff considered in formulating his opinions. (R. 425-429). This report, which is itself medical evidence, stated that Dr. Goff had interviewed Cooke about his history and had considered a number of Cooke's medical, school, and other records. The report also provided scores and results from a number of psychological tests that Dr. Goff administered (the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, which produced an IQ score of 73 for Cooke; the Reitan-Indiana Aphasia Screening Test; informal clock drawing tasks; the Wide Range Achievement Test, fourth edition; and the Personality Assessment Inventory). The report set forth specific diagnoses of mental impairments: "adjustment disorder with depressed mood," "moderate to severe reading disorder," "disorder of written expression," and "borderline intellectual functioning." (R. 429) Finally, the report noted that Dr. Goff had administered Cooke the Victoria Symptom Validity Test, "a test for dissimulation of cognitive deficits," which gave "no indications for malingering or dissimulation concerning the cognitive aspects of the examination." (R. 427).

Here, then, the ALJ was presented with a medical opinion regarding Cooke's mental impairments, given by an examining mental health specialist,10 that was supported by specific diagnoses of mental disorders, psychological test results,11 and an explanation of the evidence considered.12 Dr. Goff considered a number of medical records from Cooke's case file and, as Cooke notes, regularly provides psychological evaluations in disability matters.13, 14 The ALJ did not find that Dr. Goff's assessment or opinion were inconsistent either internally or with each other.

The medical evidence of record noted by the ALJ as "strongly contradicting" Dr. Goff's opinion regarding Cooke's mental impairments consists of cursory statements made by other physicians in the course of primarily assessing physical impairments, seemingly made in passing and based on little more than the physicians' observations of Cooke's demeanor at the time. Two of these physicians, a general practitioner and a cardiologist, cannot reasonably be considered mental health specialists.15 While neurologist Dr. Brian Hogan could conceivably possess some mental health specialization akin to Dr. Goff's, Dr. Hogan's examinations were primarily focused on assessing Cooke for signs of seizure.16 Moreover, as Cooke correctly notes in his reply brief, Dr. Hogan's examinations were of short duration, each lasting only a few minutes, and there is no indication in his treatment notes that he performed any specialized testing of Cooke's psychological impairments, as Dr. Goff did. (R. 295-315).

Indeed, the ALJ appears to have been more swayed by Cooke's failure to report medical symptoms to his health care providers, repeatedly citing to portions of the record where he believes Cooke should have mentioned them but did not.17 The ALJ also found significant that Cooke's DIB application "did not allege ... depression, emotional distress, or learning disability[,] ... did not report a psychotropic medication[,]" and "[i]n fact ... specifically denied the existence of a mental impairment or medication." (R. 41. See also R. 47 (Cooke "did not report any memory problems in his functional report" submitted September 28, 2011), 45 (Cooke "did not report any new physical or mental limitations" in his January 20, 2012 of the initial denial of his DIB application)). While Cooke "may have failed to seek psychiatric treatment for his mental condition, []it is a questionable practice to chastise one with a mental impairment for the exercise of poor judgment in seeking rehabilitation. The [ALJ] found [Cooke']s complaints less than credible given a perceived paucity of medical proof. However, this should not be a determinative factor in a credibility assessment." Blankenship v. Bowen, 874 F.2d 1116, 1124 (6th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). See also Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1996) ("[I]t is common knowledge that depression is one of the most underreported illnesses in the country because those afflicted often do not recognize that their condition reflects a potentially serious mental illness ... Thus, the fact that claimant may be one of millions of people who did not seek treatment for a mental disorder until late in the day is not a substantial basis on which to conclude that Dr. Brown's assessment of claimant's condition is inaccurate."); Beasich v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 66 F. App'x 419, 429 (3d Cir. 2003) (unpublished) ("It is true that there was a lack of medical treatment for mental impairment during this period. However, several courts have questioned the relevance of infrequent medical visits in determining when or whether a claimant is disabled." (citing Blankenship and Nguyen)).18

Though disability claimants frequently accuse ALJs of "succumb[ing] to the temptation to play doctor and make their own independent medical findings" whenever they reject medical opinions favoring claimants' assertions of disability,19 Rohan v. Chater, 98 F.3d 966, 970 (7th Cir. 1996), this case presents a rare instance in which the undersigned concurs, further undercutting the ALJ's determination. As noted above, Dr. Goff's report accompanying his opinion expressly ruled out malingering and dissembling by Cooke, citing the results of objective testing in support. Without even acknowledging Dr. Goff's determination that Cooke was not malingering, much less articulating reasons to discredit it, the ALJ, making his own use of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Ed.), a medical text, independently determined that malingering "should be strongly suspected" as to Cooke's "performance before Dr. Goff and Dr. Goff's conclusions..."20 (R. 46). "Although Social Security disability benefits must be reserved only for those who qualify to receive them, an ALJ may not arrogate the power to act as both judge and physician[;]" "[a]n ALJ sitting as a hearing officer abuses his discretion when he substitutes his own uninformed medical evaluations for those of" medical professionals. Marbury v. Sullivan, 957 F.2d 837, 840-41 (11th Cir. 1992) (Johnson, J., concurring). See also Freeman v. Schweiker, 681 F.2d 727, 731 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (finding that "the ALJ improperly substituted his judgment of the claimant's condition for that of the medical and vocational experts"); Hillsman v. Bowen, 804 F.2d 1179, 1182 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) ("Here, ... the ALJ has rejected the opinions of the treating physician not even on the basis of a differing opinion expressed by another doctor, but rather because ALJ himself reached a different conclusion after viewing the medical records. Such circumstantial evidence cannot alone support a finding of a nonsevere disability in the face of an opposing conclusion by the treating physician."); Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310, 317 (3d Cir. 2000) ("In choosing to reject the treating physician's assessment, an ALJ may not make speculative inferences from medical reports and may reject a treating physician's opinion outright only on the basis of contradictory medical evidence and not due to his or her own credibility judgments, speculation or lay opinion." (quotation marks omitted)).

The ALJ also discounted Dr. Goff's opinions based on his conclusion that they were not consistent with Cooke's ability to engage in certain activities. For instance, the ALJ determined that Cooke's "maintain[ing] a commercial driver's license," his having "recently renewed that license," and his past work as a school bus driver, furniture assembler, and collection and repossession agent were "not consistent with borderline intellectual functioning, or a reading disorder." (R. 38, 47 ("He also did collections and repossession of furniture again which would require the ability to read and write reports.")). The ALJ further determined that Cooke's self-reported daily activities,21 and his continuing to drive a school bus for a short time after his alleged disability onset date, were "not consistent" with Cooke's allegations of impairment, particularly Cooke's "driving and caring for an autistic son." (R. 45).22

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a strikingly similar situation where, "[w]ithout expressly relying on any medical evidence or authority, the ALJ determined that [the claimant]'s efforts at engaging in a small machine repair/resale business were incompatible with a diagnosis of major depression and [the treating psychiatrist's] conclusions regarding [the claimant]'s functional abilities." Rohan, 98 F.3d at 970. The Seventh Circuit held that the ALJ had erred in doing so, stating:

Id. at 970-71. Accord Blakes ex rel. Wolfe v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 565, 570 (7th Cir. 2003) ("[T]he ALJ seems to have succumbed to the temptation to play doctor when she concluded that a good prognosis for speech and language difficulties was inconsistent with a diagnosis of mental retardation because no expert offered evidence to that effect here. See Rohan v. Chater, 98 F.3d 966, 970-71 (7th Cir. 1996) (ALJ's may not make independent medical findings regarding whether certain activities are inconsistent with a particular medical diagnosis). Under the circumstances, the ALJ should have summoned an expert to provide an informed basis for determining whether Lamanuel is disabled." (emphasis added)). The Seventh Circuit's admonitions in Rohan and Wilder apply equally to the ALJ's decision here.

In sum, "there is no medical testimony to rebut Dr. [Goff]'s opinion, nor is there overwhelmingly compelling non-medical evidence to the contrary ... in the absence of competing medical opinions." Rivera v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 964, 969 (2d Cir. 1991). Even factoring in the "circumstances under which the report was obtained[,]" Reddick,157 F.3d at 726 — namely, the mere fact that it was obtained three weeks prior to Cooke's hearing before the ALJ and was not the result of a physician referral — the ALJ's decision to reject Dr. Goff's opinions is not supported by substantial evidence. While the ALJ was entitled to cast some suspicion on such an eleventh-hour diagnosis, the ALJ was not entitled to disregard it absent substantial contrary evidence. To the extent the ALJ believed Dr. Goff's assessment was inconsistent with Cooke's overall history, he had other tools at his disposal to resolve the inconsistency, including ordering a consultative examination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520b(c); Holladay v. Bowen, 848 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1988) ("[B]ecause of the Secretary's duty to develop the medical record fully and fairly, this court has held that it is reversible error for an ALJ not to order a consultative examination when such an evaluation is necessary for him to make an informed decision." (quotation omitted) (emphasis added)).

Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS Cooke's assertion of error in Claim 1.

B. Claim 2

Though styled as a separate claim of error, Claim 2 is merely an extension of Claim 1, being based on the premise that, because the ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Goff's opinion, "that opinion must be accepted as true." (Doc. 15 at 7). Cooke appears to invite the Court to itself apply Social Security Ruling 85-15 and, after considering Dr. Goff's opinions in conjunction with other evidence in the administrative record, remand with instructions that Cooke be found disabled.

Cooke cites no authority for his proposition that Dr. Goff's opinions must be accepted as true. As the Commissioner correctly notes (see Doc. 21 at 10 n.2), at most, there is authority in this Circuit indicating that when the Commissioner "has ignored or failed properly to refute a treating physician's testimony, ... he has accepted it as true." MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added). As noted previously, Dr. Goff is not a treating medical source. Regardless, MacGregor's holding conflicts with earlier Circuit precedent that remand is the appropriate action where an ALJ's credibility determination was found to be inadequate, and this Court is bound to follow the earlier precedent. See Lawton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 431 F. App'x 830, 835 (11th Cir. June 22, 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished) ("There is language in MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050 (11th Cir. 1986), for the proposition that, if an ALJ fails clearly to articulate reasons for discounting the opinion of a treating physician, that evidence must be accepted as true as a matter of law. However, our earlier decisions had remanded cases to the agency when there was a failure to provide an adequate credibility determination. See, e.g., Owens[ v. Heckler], 748 F.2d [1511,] 1516[ (11th Cir. 1984)]; Wiggins v. Schweiker, 679 F.2d 1387, 1390 (11th Cir. 1982). Pursuant to the prior precedent rule, we are bound by the holding of the first panel to address an issue of law, unless and until it is overruled by this Court sitting en banc or the Supreme Court. United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir.1998) (en banc). Accordingly, rather than broadly accept the doctors' opinions as true, we will remand to the agency so that it can make a determination in the first instance of the proper weight to be afforded to those opinions."); Davis v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 449 F. App'x 828, 833 n.1 (11th Cir. Dec. 19, 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished) (similar). Cf. Carnes v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1215, 1219 (11th Cir. 1991) ("The credibility of witnesses is for the Secretary to determine, not the courts..."). Thus, the Court OVERRULES Claim 2.

V. Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing analysis, it is ORDERED that the Commissioner's final decision issued October 20, 2014, denying Cooke's application for DIB benefits is REVERSED and REMANDED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), see Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991), for further proceedings consistent with this decision. This remand under sentence four of § 405(g) makes Cooke a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, see Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993), and terminates this Court's jurisdiction over this matter.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B), the Court hereby grants Cooke's counsel an extension of time in which to file a petition for authorization of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) until thirty days after receipt of a notice of award of benefits from the Social Security Administration. See Bergen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 454 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) ("Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) applies to a § 406(b) attorney's fee claim."); Blitch v. Astrue, 261 F. App'x 241, 242 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished) ("In Bergen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 454 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006), we suggested the best practice for avoiding confusion about the integration of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B) into the procedural framework of a fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 406 is for a plaintiff to request and the district court to include in the remand judgment a statement that attorneys fees may be applied for within a specified time after the determination of the plaintiff's past due benefits by the Commission. 454 F.3d at 1278 n.2.").

Final judgment shall issue separately in accordance with this Order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

DONE and ORDERED.