[Robert U.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:22-CV-241-MAP, 2023 WL 3815256 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2023)

• Plaintiff’s Memorandum
• Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum 

Topics addressed:

• Specific impairments: evaluation of anxiety

• Specific impairments: social phobia

• RFC - interacting with others

• RFC - relationship with PRTF findings

• RFC - work environment is different from medical clinic or home environment

• Mental impairments - fluctuating symptoms typical

• Mental impairments - generalized findings about speech, thought content, and intelligence not inconsistent with mental illness

• Single decision maker

• Treating physician (old law) - good cause

• Testimony of lay witnesses
  

Rulings addressed:

• Social Security Ruling 96-8p

• Social Security Ruling 96-2p (old law)
  

Issues briefed:

1)  The ALJ improperly relied on the opinion of a lay State agency single decision maker whose opinion is not entitled to any weight.

2) The ALJ’s mental residual functional capacity assessment finding does not properly account for [Plaintiff’s] inability to interact with others.

3) The ALJ’s reasons for according “little weight” to the opinions of Dr. Turnberg, Plaintiff’s longtime treating psychiatrist, are not supported by substantial evidence.

4) The ALJ’s reasons for according “little weight” to the testimony of Plaintiff’s girlfriend, SW, are not supported by substantial evidence.

Court decision:
In remanding this case, the court addressed the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff had “only moderate limitations in interacting with others.” 2023 WL 3815256, at *7. In so finding:

the ALJ weighed in on the fact that Plaintiff “socializes with his girlfriend and his daughter, and that he has one friend with whom he interacts” (Tr. 15). While it is true that Plaintiff lives with his girlfriend and their daughter, the record hardly demonstrates he “socializes” (Tr. 15). Rather, Plaintiff’s girlfriend testified at the most recent administrative hearing that Plaintiff does not get out of bed at least 20 out of 30 days a month; that he secludes himself from his daughter at times; and that he does not go outside the four walls of their home, “the deck is the limit . . . that is as far as he can go.” (Tr. 623-625). Certainly, Plaintiff’s ability to occasionally cook meals or to supervise his daughter in his home are hardly indicative of his ability to function in a demanding workplace. See Schink, 935 F.3d at 1266 (“Indeed, Social Security regulations acknowledge that the ability to complete tasks in settings that are less demanding than a typical work setting ‘does not necessarily demonstrate [an applicant’s] ability to complete tasks in the context of regular employment during a normal workday or work week. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt, P, app. 1, § 12.00(C)(6)(b). That is especially relevant where, as here, an applicant spends most of his time among familiar (or no) people and a steady environment, so his behavior does not necessarily show how he would function in a work setting on a sustained basis. See Id. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.00(D)(3)(b).’”). Furthermore, as Plaintiff notes, the ALJ’s reliance on the facts that he has not experienced hallucinations, delusions, or paranoia (if true) and that he has no reports of homicidal ideations are not relevant to the domain of interacting with others.

Id. (citing Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245, 1262 (11th Cir. 2019)).

The court also addressed the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Turnberg, noting that his “extensive office notes consistently indicate Plaintiff did not leave his home and suffered from social phobia,” and finding that “[s]urely her voluminous handwritten notes are persuasive evidence of Plaintiff’s marked limitations.” Thus, the court concluded that the “ALJ did not articulate substantial evidence supporting his finding that Plaintiff suffers only moderate limitations in interacting with others and is capable of occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public.” Id. (citing Schink, 935 F.3d at 1266; Sharpe v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2022 WL 152229 (11th Cir. Jan. 18, 2022)).

Finally, the court stressed that in “remanding this case, I point out that an ALJ must consider ‘the fundamental differences between the relaxed, controlled setting of a medical clinic and the more stressful environment of the workplace.’” Id. at *8 (citing Simon, 7 F.4th at 1107 (quoting Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310, 319 (3d Cir. 2000)) (“for a person who suffers from an affective disorder or personality disorder marked by anxiety, the work environment is completely different from home or a mental health clinic”); Castro v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 783 F.App’x 948, 956 (11th Cir. 2019) (“Without more, we cannot say that [the treating physician’s] observations of Castro’s judgment, insight, thought process, and thought content in a treatment environment absent work stressors were inconsistent with his assessments about the limitations she would face in a day-to-day work environment”). The court observed that while:

Simon involved a claimant diagnosed with bipolar disorder, Plaintiff’s mental health diagnoses of anxiety and social phobia are chronic conditions too. Chronic mental disorders are characterized by “unpredictable fluctuation of their symptoms, and thus it is not surprising that even a highly unstable patient will have good days or possibly good months.” Id. (quoting Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2011)). For those who suffer from chronic disorders, “ ‘a snapshot of any single moment says little about [a person’s] overall condition,’ and an ALJ who relies on such snapshots to discredit the remainder of a psychiatrist’s findings demonstrates a ‘fundamental, but regrettably all-too-common, misunderstanding of mental illness.’” Id. (quoting Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011)). Similarly, “activities– which do not require or even involve human interaction– do not establish that [a claimant] is able to function socially.” Schink, 935 F.3d at 1266. Like the claimant in Simon, the Plaintiff’s diagnosis caused him to experience more serious symptoms than those acknowledged by the ALJ.

Id.