AUTRY R. HAND, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
OTIS R. BOWEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Appeals Council adequately explained its rejection of the Administrative Law Judge's credibility findings, and this conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.
The Appeals Council rejected the claimant's complaints of pain, finding them not credible because clinical and laboratory findings did not support the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appeals Council Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This panel’s opinion in Hand v. Heckler, 761 F. 2d 1545 (11th Cir.1985), was vacated for rehearing en banc, 774 F. 2d 428 (11th Cir.1985). On rehearing, the en banc court agreed with this panel’s prior holding that the proper scope of judicial review in Social Security cases focuses on the substantiality of the evidence supporting the Appeals Council’s decision, even when the Appeals Council has rejected the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Parker v. Bowen, 788 F. 2d 1512, 1516-20 (11th Cir.1986) (en banc). However, the en banc court also held that if the Appeals Council rejects the credibility findings of the ALJ, the substantiality of the evidence may be affected, and therefore the Appeals Council should ordinarily provide reasons for its rejection of the AU’s credibility finding; such rejection in light of the stated reasons must be supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Id. at 1520-22. Since our prior panel opinion did not consider whether the Appeals Council had adequately explained its rejection of the AU’s credibility findings, the en banc court remanded the case to this panel for that purpose.
We now hold that the Appeals Council adequately explained its rejection of the AU’s credibility findings and that this conclusion is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
The Appeals Council expressly found that Hand’s complaints of pain were not credible. The Appeals Council’s explanation for this finding was that the clinical and laboratory findings did not establish the existence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce pain of the severity alleged. The Appeals Council specifically discussed the written report of Dr. Pruce (the physician to whom Hand was referred by his attorney), the only evidence that arguably might have provided a medical basis for the pain. Dr. Pruce’s report was discounted both because it consisted merely of a conclusory opinion that was not supported by clinical or laboratory findings and because it was in conflict with the opinion of Hand’s treating physicians and the consulting neurologist.
The basis for the Appeals Council’s rejection of the ALJ’s credibility finding is readily apparent, and is sufficient to permit our review. We find ample evidence in the record as a whole to support this finding. Except for these changes, the previous opinion of this panel, 761 F. 2d 1545, is reinstated. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elam v. R.R. Ret. Bd., 921 F.2d 1210 (11th Cir. 1991)…) (en banc). We determined the proper scope of review and remanded to the panel for further proceedings. Id. at 1522. On remand the panel reinstated without change the part of its opinion that had adopted the three-part pain standard. Hand v. Bowen, 793 F. 2d 275, 276 (11th Cir.1986). . Although Landry was decided after we vacated the original panel opinion in Hand, n. 1, supra, the court failed to note that action in its discussion of Hand. That failing was cured when the panel in Hand reinstated its origi…
-
Blankenship v. Bowen, 801 F.2d 1271 (11th Cir. 1986)…. We will never find that you are disabled based on your symptoms, including pain, unless medical signs or findings show that there is a medical condition that could be reasonably expected to produce those symptoms. (emphasis added). Hand v. Bowen, 793 F. 2d 275 (11th Cir.1986) (a case consolidated on appeal with Parker v. Bowen), is closely analogous. In Hand, the district court affirmed the Appeals Council’s denial of disability benefits. The court of appeals affirmed. Hand v. Heckler, 761 F. 2d 1545 (11t…
Authorities Cited
- Nelda A. Parker v. Bowen, 788 F.2d 1512 (11th Cir. 1986)
- Autry R. Hand v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1985)
- Nelda A. Parker v. Heckler, 774 F.2d 428 (11th Cir. 1985)