GREGORY J. KELLY, Magistrate Judge.
Diane Cecile Sawyer (the "Claimant"), appeals to the District Court from a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying her application for benefits. Doc. No. 1. Claimant argues that the Administrative Law Judge (the "ALJ") erred by: 1) failing to state with particularity the weight given and the reasons therefor to the opinion of Dr. Barber, an examining consultative physician; and 2) failing to include Claimant's moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace in the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment (the "RFC"); and 3) failing to discuss pertinent elements of the non-examining physicians' opinions. Doc. No. 15 at 7-21. For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the Commissioner's final decision be
On July 15, 2009, Dr. Alvan Barber, M.D., performed a consultative physical examination of Claimant. R. 420-28. Physical examination revealed the following: 5/5 muscle strength in the upper and lower extremities; 4/5 grip strength in both hands; reduced range of motion with right shoulder, right and left wrist, and finger pain; positive straight leg test while seated and supine; paravertebral muscle spasms; positive point tenderness in the right and left SI joint; intact fine and gross motor skills; slow guarded gait; unable to walk on toes and heels; unable to squat; and depression. R. 423-24. Dr. Barber's impressions were: bipolar disorder; arthralgia; cervical and lumbar degenerative spine disorder with pain; history of right wrist tendonitis with right wrist pain; alcohol use disorder, in recovery; polysubstance abuse disorder, in recovery for six months; and tobacco use disorder. R. 424. Dr. Barber opined that Claimant: "cannot walk [and/or] stand for long periods of time"; can sit for "reasonable periods of time"; can use coordinated upper body movements with her hands; and can drive. R. 424. Thus, Dr. Barber opined that Claimant cannot walk and/or stand for long periods of time. R. 424.
In the decision, the ALJ determined that Claimant retains the RFC for light work, including the ability to occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and be exposed to height and hazards. R. 14.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) (emphasis added). In order for a person to be capable of performing the full range of light work a claimant must be able to perform all of the above-referenced activities. SSR 83-10 clarifies that a "
In the decision, the ALJ thoroughly described Dr. Barber's findings and noted that "Dr. Barber opined that claimant could not walk or stand for long periods of time; but could sit for reasonable periods and use upper body movements and coordinated activities with hands." R. 16. However, the ALJ did not state the weight given to Dr. Barber's opinion or discuss the conflict between Dr. Barber's opinion that Claimant cannot walk and/or stand for long periods of time and the ALJ's RFC for light work. R. 14-19.
Claimant argues that the ALJ erred by failing to state with particularity the weight given and the reasons therefor to Dr. Barber's opinion. Doc. No. 15 at 7-10. The Commissioner essentially concedes that the ALJ did not state with particularity the weight given to Dr. Barber's opinion, but maintains that the ALJ "clearly gave the opinion little weight" because the ALJ determined that Claimant retains the RFC for light work, which conflicts with Dr. Barber's opinion. Doc. No. 16 at 9 ("[T]he ALJ considered Dr. Barber's opinion . . . and clearly gave the opinion little weight when [the ALJ] relied on substantial evidence to determine that [Claimant] could perform light work."). As detailed below, based on clear and binding precedent in this circuit, the case must be remanded.
Weighing the opinions and findings of treating, examining, and non-examining physicians is an integral part of steps four and five of the ALJ's sequential evaluation process for determining disability. In Winschel v. Commissioner of Social Security, 631 F.3d 1176, 1178-79 (11th Cir. 2011), the Eleventh Circuit held that whenever a physician offers a statement reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis, and prognosis, what the claimant can still do despite his or her impairments, and the claimant's physical and mental restrictions, the statement is an opinion
In this case, although the ALJ accurately discussed Dr. Barber's findings and opinion, including Dr. Barber's opinion that Claimant cannot walk and/or stand for long periods of time, the ALJ failed to state with particularity the weight given to Dr. Barber's opinion and the reasons therefor. This error, which is apparent from the face of the ALJ's decision, requires reversal. See MacGregor, 786 F.2d at 1053 (failure to state with particularity the weight given to opinions and the reasons therefor constitutes reversible error).
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Court find that this error warrants reversing and remanding the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178-79; MacGregor, 786 F.2d at 1053 (failure to state with particularity the weight given to opinions and the reasons therefor constitutes reversible error).
For the reasons stated above, it is
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report within fourteen (14) days from the date of its filing shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings on appeal.