[Mark S.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 8:22-CV-785-DNF, 2023 WL 5091355 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2023)

[Mark S.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 8:22-CV-785-DNF, 2023 WL 5091355 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2023) (Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier, by consent)

Briefs for purchase:

• Plaintiff’s Memorandum

• Plaintiff’s Reply Brief 

Topics addressed:

• Adult child’s disability benefits

• Establishing onset date 

• Prior claim file

• RFC - failure to include credited opinions

• RFC - relationship with PRTF findings

• RFC - interacting with others

• Young adult claims - parents’ statements 

• Medical opinions (new law) - persuasiveness

• Subjective complaints - improper focus on objective evidence
  

Rulings addressed:

• Social Security Ruling 96-8p
• Social Security Ruling 11-2p
• Social Security Ruling 18-01p

Issues briefed:

1)  The ALJ failed to comply with SSR 18-01p in determining the established onset date of Plaintiff’s disability.

2) The ALJ’s mental residual functional capacity assessment is not supported by substantial evidence.

3) The ALJ failed to properly consider the statements of Plaintiff’s parents as required by SSR 11-2p.

4) The ALJ’s reasons for finding the opinion of Dr. Lopez, Plaintiff’s longtime treating psychiatrist, to be unpersuasive, are not supported by substantial evidence.

5) The ALJ’s reasons for not crediting Plaintiff’s testimony are not supported by substantial evidence.

Court decision:
The court first held that given the lack of showing that the “prior SSI file contains any evidence relevant to the period here, the ALJ did not err in failing to acknowledge the prior SSI decision or in failing to obtain the prior claim file.” 2023 WL 5091355, at *4. However, as the case was remanded on other grounds, “the Commissioner may reconsider whether the prior 2011 claim file should be associated and considered here.” Id.

However, the court held that substantial evidence did not support “the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Lopez’s opinions were unpersuasive simply because Plaintiff was “stable” at times during the relevant period or because they were written after the relevant time period.” Id. at *7. In finding that remand was warranted on this issue, the court explained:

While Dr. Lopez’s treatment notes reflect some stable mental health examinations, he also found periods of anxiety and mood outbursts with decompensation and repeatedly adjusted Plaintiff’s medications during the relevant period to attempt to address these impairments. These records support Dr. Lopez’s severity finding for Plaintiff’s bipolar disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. These records also support Dr. Lopez’s finding that during the relevant period, Plaintiff suffered from instability, periods of decompensation, periodic anxiety, and mood disturbances, which all support his statement that Plaintiff would be absent from work 3-4 days a week.

Id. Finally, while Dr. Lopez’s opinions were “issued in early January and February 2021, long after Plaintiff attained the age of 22” Dr. Lopez had “treated Plaintiff since 2000 and closely managed his mental health care since then” and in one letter, “Dr. Lopez specifically referenced the relevant time period.” Id. “Of note, the ALJ did not mention the March 10, 2011 letter, drafted less than two years after the end of the relevant period” in which “Dr. Lopez refers to treatment dates during the relevant period when Plaintiff had increasing episodes of aggression and temper outbursts, and episodes of decompensation.” Id. While it was “drafted after the relevant period, it clearly relates to the time at issue as do the later opinion letters.” Id.