LESLIE R. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Clarence Philpott ("Claimant") appeals the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") denying his application for disability benefits. Doc. No. 1. Claimant raises two arguments challenging the Commissioner's final decision, and, based on those arguments, requests that the matter be remanded for further administrative proceedings. Doc. No. 16, at 19, 29, 38. The Commissioner argues that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("the ALJ") is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed. Id. at 38. For the reasons stated herein, the Commissioner's final decision is
On March 4, 2016, Claimant filed an application for disability insurance benefits, alleging a disability onset date of March 1, 2014. R. 218-19. Claimant's application was denied initially and on reconsideration, and he requested a hearing before an ALJ. R. 125-28, 129-33, 135. A hearing was held before the ALJ on April 11, 2018, at which Claimant was represented by an attorney. R. 59-92. Claimant and a vocational expert ("VE") testified at the hearing. Id. After the hearing, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision finding that Claimant was not disabled from his alleged disability onset date through the date of the decision. R. 40-52. Claimant sought review of the ALJ's decision by the Appeals Council. On August 24, 2018, the Appeals Council denied the request for review. R. 1-6. Claimant now seeks review of the final decision of the Commissioner by this Court. Doc. No. 1.
After careful consideration of the entire record, the ALJ performed the five-step evaluation process as set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). R. 40-52.
Based on a review of the record, the ALJ found that Claimant had the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform a limited range of light work as defined in the Social Security regulations
R. 45.
After considering the record evidence, Claimant's RFC, and the testimony of the VE, the ALJ found that Claimant was unable to perform any past relevant work, which included work classified as combat rifle crew member or sales person parts. R. 50. Nonetheless, considering Claimant's age, education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ concluded that there were jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy that he could perform, including sorter of agriculture produce; router; and marker. R. 50-51. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Claimant was not disabled from the alleged disability onset date through the date of the decision. R. 51.
Because Claimant has exhausted his administrative remedies, the Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), as adopted by reference in 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). The scope of the Court's review is limited to determining whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the Commissioner's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). The Commissioner's findings of fact are conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which is defined as "more than a scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997).
The Court must view the evidence as a whole, taking into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the Commissioner's decision, when determining whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1560 (11th Cir. 1995). The Court may not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner, and, even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's decision, the reviewing court must affirm if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983).
In the Joint Memorandum, which I have reviewed, Claimant raises two assignments of error: (1) the ALJ failed to give an adequate explanation for rejecting a disability rating issued to Claimant by the United States Department of Veteran's Affairs ("VA"); and (2) the ALJ failed to give a sufficient explanation for rejecting the opinion of Latha Babuji, ARNP. Doc. No. 16. These issues will be addressed in turn.
In 2017, the VA assessed Claimant with the following rated disabilities:
R. 1232, 1236. Claimant's combined VA disability rating is 80%, but he is paid at the 100% disability rate due to due to a finding of "individual unemployability." R. 1232.
In the decision, the ALJ stated as follows as it relates to the VA disability ratings:
R. 49-50. Elsewhere in the decision, the ALJ found that although the Claimant was assessed the 20% disability rating for the knee condition; 10% for lumbosacral or cervical strain; and 10% for limited flexion of the knee, the "objective evidence is limited for treatments," and "notes reflect the claimant's ambulation was unaided." R. 46-47.
The Social Security Administrative ("SSA") regulations provide that a decision by any nongovernmental or governmental agency, such as the VA, concerning whether a claimant is disabled, based on that agency's own rules, is not binding on the SSA. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504.
An ALJ may not summarily reject a VA disability rating solely because it is non-binding on the SSA and relies on different criteria than the SSA. Id. (citing Brown-Gaudet-Evans, 673 F. App'x at 904 ("It is not disputed that the VA's `disability' determination relies on different criteria than the SSA's determination. But that does not mean that the ALJ can summarily ignore the VA's determination nor give it `little weight.'")). "A justified assignment of little weight to a VA disability rating, therefore, outlines and explains what medical conditions the VA assessed and how they differ from the claimed SSA disability." Id. at 1347 (citing Boyette v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 605 F. App'x 777, 779-80 (11th Cir. 2015); Ostborg v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 610 F. App'x 907, 913-15 (11th Cir. 2015); Adams v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 542 F. App'x 854, 856-57 (11th Cir. 2013)); see also Boggs v. Berryhill, No. 8:18-cv-148-AEP, 2019 WL 1324620, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2019) ("[A]n ALJ appropriately evaluates a VA disability rating on its merits by providing `specific reasons for discounting the VA's determination' and comparing the `VA examiners' opinions, VA primary care provider opinions, and VA treatment records' with the other parts of the record.") (citing Ostborg, 610 F. App'x at 914; Boyette, 605 F. App'x at 779)).
Claimant argues that the ALJ erred in failing to provide an adequate explanation for rejecting the VA disability rating in this case. Doc. No. 16, at 19. He contends that although the VA and SSA use different processes for disability determinations, that is not a valid reason for rejecting the VA disability ratings. Id. at 20. Moreover, Claimant argues that although the ALJ wrote that the VA may not have reviewed the same medical evidence as the ALJ reviewed, that "does not seem plausible" because most of the medical records available in this case are from the VA. Id. at 21. To the extent there were additional medical records post-dating the VA's decision, Claimant notes that the ALJ did not identify any specific findings in such records suggesting that Claimant's mental health symptoms had improved. Id. Finally, Claimant argues that the ALJ should not be able to reject a VA disability determination solely because the agency does not use vocational experts. Id. at 22.
In response, the Commissioner argues that each of the ALJ's reasons to give little weight to the VA disability determinations are supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 23-28. In particular, the Commissioner contends that the ALJ properly considered that: (1) the VA did not consider all of the record evidence that was before the ALJ; (2) the VA did not rely on vocational expert testimony (and even if this were error, any error would be harmless in this case); and (3) the standards employed by the two agencies are different, and the SSA is not bound by a disability determination by the VA. Id.
I find that the ALJ's explanation for providing little weight to the VA disability determination was insufficient. As discussed above, the ALJ's finding that the "different disability programs have different requirements," and that "the Social Security Administration is not bound" by a disability determination by the VA does not provide a sufficient basis to assign the VA disability determination little weight. See Brown-Gaudet-Evans, 673 F. App'x at 904.
Moreover, the ALJ's explanation that there was "no indication that the VA reviewed all medical records reviewed by the undersigned or used a vocational expert" is also insufficient. To the extent that the ALJ indicated that he considered more and/or different records than were considered in conjunction with the VA disability rating, the ALJ failed to identify such records, explain how such records provided different evidence than that considered by the VA, or how those records lent support for rejecting the VA disability rating. See, e.g., Cronin v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:10-cv-1765-Orl-DAB, 2012 WL 3984703, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2012) (finding ALJ erred in dismissing 100% VA rating in a single sentence "on the pretense that the VA did not have all of the records that she had"); see also Jenkins v. Astrue, No. 1:08-cv-251/MMP/MD, 2010 WL 1383702, at *7 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2010) ("A VA decision or disability decision must . . . be given consideration and great weight unless there is substantial record evidence to refute it, and if there is such evidence, the evidence must be discussed by the ALJ."), report and recommendation adopted, 2010 WL 1383714 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2010).
Likewise, I find that the ALJ's conclusory assertion that the VA did not use VE testimony to reach its disability determination, by itself, fails to support the ALJ's decision to reject the VA disability ratings. The ALJ fails to explain how the absence of VE testimony affected his conclusion regarding the VA disability rating or how that caused him to reject the other agency's disability determination. Cf. McCray v. Saul, No. 3:18-CV-642-SRW, 2019 WL 5541441, at *6 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 25, 2019) (finding that "generic conclusions . . . do not support the discounting of a VA disability determination").
Based on the foregoing, "the Court is unable to determine whether the ALJ gave appropriate consideration and weight to Plaintiff's VA disability ratings." Boggs, 2019 WL 1324620, at *4. Therefore, remand is required. "On remand, the ALJ is not required to give the VA's disability determination controlling weight"; but certainly he "must seriously consider and closely scrutinize the VA's disability determination" and "give specific reasons if [he] discounts that determination." Beshia, 328 F. Supp. 3d at 1348 (citing Brown-Gaudet-Evans, 673 F. App'x at 904)).
Because remand is required based upon Claimant's first assignment of error, it is unnecessary to review Claimant's remaining objection to the ALJ's decision regarding the opinion of Latha Babuji, ARNP. See Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726, 729 (11th Cir. 1983) (on remand the ALJ must reassess the entire record).
Nonetheless, I note that in the decision, the ALJ only discussed ARNP Babuji's opinions in a Mental Impairment Questionnaire as follows:
R. 49.
In determining a claimant's RFC, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including the opinions of medical and non-medical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 416.945(a)(3). At the time Claimant applied for disability benefits, an ARNP was not an "acceptable medical source" under the applicable regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(d) (2016); 416.913(d) (2016). Instead, an ARNP was considered an "other source," whose opinion was not entitled to any special deference. Id.; see Burton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., Case No. 6:16-cv-1209-Orl-37DCI, 2017 WL 9362923, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 4174314 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2017).
As the foregoing demonstrates, and as Claimant argues, an ALJ may not reject an opinion from an "other source" solely because the person is not an "acceptable medical source." See SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *3; see also Williams v. Astrue, No. 3:07-cv-501-J-HTS, 2008 WL 1930619, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2008) (noting that an "ALJ is not free to disregard the opinions of health care professionals simply because they are not medical doctors"); Reliford v. Barnhart, 444 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1188 (N.D. Ala. 2006) (finding it "improper and unreasonable" for an ALJ to completely reject the opinion of a treating physical therapist because the therapist was an "other source"). Accordingly, on remand, to the extent that the ALJ again concludes that the opinions of ARNP Babuji are entitled to little weight, the ALJ should provide a reasoned explanation supporting that decision.
Based on the foregoing, it is
20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b).
