LINDSAY
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

M.D. Fla. | 2023-09-21
No. 5:22-cv-177
District Court, M.D. Florida (2023)

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.

Holding

The court held that the ALJ's decision denying disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence and based on correct legal standards, including the consideration of absenteeism.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his disability insurance benefits. The Magistrate Judge recommended affirming the Commissioner's decision, and the pl…

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.

Topics
Social Security Ruling 96-8P Report And Recommendation Claim For Disability Insurance Benefits Vocational Expert Testimony

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Social Security Ruling 96-8P cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

This case is before the Court on plaintiff’s appeal of an administrative decision denying his claim for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act (Doc. 1). The parties filed briefs and the administrative record and, upon review of these filings, the assigned United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. 20). The Commissioner did not respond but plaintiff’s objections were addressed in her initial brief (Doc. 14) to which the Commissioner did respond (Doc. 18).

Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ’s decision is based on the correct legal standards and is supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court believes the absenteeism issue deserves further discussion so it is footnoted.1 Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation are

2. The decision of the Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED.

3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the

Commissioner and against plaintiff, and close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 21st day of September, 2023.

(WW /) TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN See” United States District Judge

Ss. copies: Honorable Philip R. Lammens United States Magistrate Judge counsel of record

Footnotes
1 The undersigned agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, including that absenteeism is not a basis in this case to remand. While the ALJ admittedly did not discuss absenteeism as a separate point, she noted the relevant rule (SSR-96-8p), thoroughly discussed plaintiff’s medical treatment and records, noted his testimony regarding weekly shots, and heard testimony from the VE regarding the degree of tolerance for absenteeism in the job market. The ALJ found plaintiff’s testimony as to the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms was not consistent with the medical evidence and was not persuaded that the evidence supported the severity of symptoms and degree of limitation plaintiff alleged. Her RFC findings reflect that, and did not include limitations based on absenteeism. On this record, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. See Cherkaoui v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 678 F. App’x 902, 904 (11th Cir. 2017) (explaining that effects of treatment are part of an ALJ’s consideration for assessing RFC under SSR 96- 8p, but absenteeism itself is not an appropriate consideration for assessing RFC); see also Frank v. Barnhart, 326 F. 3d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 2003) (rejecting the argument that an ALJ must articulate separate findings as to whether a plaintiff can perform a job and maintain the job); Sailem v. Kijakazi, No. 2:21- cv-103, 2023 WL 2564346, at *5-6 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 1, 2023) (explaining that courts assume an RFC assessment includes implicit findings of ability to work on a regular and continuing basis and that a VE’s testimony about absenteeism indicates the ALJ considered it); Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 8:20-cv-1261- WFJ-JSS, 2022 WL 428503, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2022) (finding substantial evidence supported ALJ’s RFC assessment where VE testified about absenteeism, and ALJ found plaintiff’s statements as to intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms were not consistent with medical evidence); J.P. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-cv-12 (LAG)(TQL), 2021 WL 18994146, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 19, 2021) (explaining that ALJ’s determination included implicit findings that plaintiff’s medical appointments would not affect her ability to work where decision included extensive discussion of treatment record and VE testified about absenteeism). OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 19) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw