EDWARDS v. O'MALLEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

HERSHEL EDWARDS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 5:23cv184/ZCB

MARTIN O’MALLEY,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.1

____________________________________/

ORDER

This is a Social Security appeal filed under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Plaintiff Hershel Edwards seeks judicial review of the Social Security

Commissioner’s decision denying him disability benefits. As explained

below, this matter is remanded to the Commissioner.

1 Martin O’Malley became the Commissioner of Social Security on

December 20, 2023. See “Commissioner,” Social Security,

https://www.ssa.gov/agency/commissioner/ (last visited August 29, 2024).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Mr. O’Malley is substituted

for the former Acting Commissioner, Kilolo Kijakazi.

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff applied for a period of disability and disability insurance

benefits, alleging an onset date of August 15, 2019. (Tr. 115, 337-338).2

The Social Security Administration denied his application. (Tr. 169-78;

181-96). Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ), which was held on February 23, 2022. (Tr. 64-99). The ALJ

issued a partially favorable decision. (Tr. 134-52).

Plaintiff asked the Appeals Council to review the ALJ’s partially

favorable decision. (Tr. 292). The Appeals Council vacated the ALJ’s

partially favorable decision and remanded the case to the ALJ for further

proceedings. (Tr. 159-63). The ALJ held a new hearing on January 5,

2023. (Tr. 35-63). At the new hearing, Plaintiff amended his alleged

onset date from August 15, 2019, to November 30, 2021. (Tr. 11).

On January 31, 2024, the ALJ issued a new decision. This time,

the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled. (Tr. 10-20). The Appeals

Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s new decision.

(Tr. 1-6). Thus, the ALJ’s January 31, 2024 decision stands as the final

decision of the Commissioner. Plaintiff has timely requested judicial

review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

II. The Social Security Administration’s Sequential

Evaluation Process

The Social Security Administration uses a five-step sequential

process to determine whether a claimant is disabled. Phillips v.

Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1237 (11th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1520(a)(4). First, the Commissioner must determine whether the

claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(1). If so, the claimant is not disabled. Id. § 404.1520(b).

Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity,

then the Commissioner will determine the severity of the claimant’s

impairments. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). To be disabled, a claimant must

have a “severe impairment,” which is an impairment that “significantly

limits [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work

activities.” Id. § 404.1520(c).

Third, the Commissioner evaluates whether the claimant’s severe

impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals an

impairment listed in Appendix 1 to subpart P of Part 404 of the

2 Citations to the administrative record filed by the Commissioner are

designated as “Tr.” The page numbers cited are those found on the

bottom right corner of each page of the transcript, rather than the

numbers that were assigned by the Court’s electronic docketing system.

regulations (the “Listings”). Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). Fourth, the

Commissioner determines whether the claimant’s residual functional

capacity permits performance of his or her past relevant work. Id.

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). Fifth and finally, the Commissioner determines

whether the claimant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and

past work experience prevent the performance of any other work in the

national economy. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).

The claimant bears the burden of proof at the first four steps. Goode

v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 966 F.3d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir. 2020). If the

claimant establishes the first four steps, then the burden shifts to the

Commissioner at step five to show the existence of other jobs in the

national economy that the claimant can perform. Buckwalter v. Acting

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 5 F.4th 1315, 1321 (11th Cir. 2021). If the

Commissioner carries this burden, then the claimant must prove that he

cannot perform the work identified by the Commissioner. Goode, 966

F.3d at 1279.

III. The ALJ’s Decision

Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial

gainful activity since the alleged onset date. (Tr. 13, Finding 2). At step

two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from the following severe

impairments: Hill-Sachs deformity of the left upper extremity,

degenerative joint disease of the left shoulder with left rotator cuff

tendinopathy and partial tendon tear, recurrent left tennis elbow,

degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine, bilateral

carpal tunnel syndrome, and ulnar entrapment neuropathy across the

left elbow and bilateral wrists. (Tr. 13, Finding 3). The ALJ also found

that Plaintiff had non-severe medical impairments of obesity and

hypertension. (Id.). The ALJ further found that Plaintiff’s allegations of

a mental impairment were “not medically determinable,” and “the

medical record does not provide for any mental health diagnoses.” (Tr.

14).

At step three, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not have an

impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically

equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part

404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 14, Finding 4). Proceeding to step four,

the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to

perform light work, except:

He can occasionally push, pull, lift, and carry twenty pounds,

but can only lift ten pounds overhead. He can never climb

ladders. He can frequently stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. He

can occasionally reach overhead with the left upper extremity.

He can frequently reach in all other directions with the

bilateral upper extremities. He can frequently handle and

finger with the bilateral upper extremities. He can tolerate

occasional exposure to unprotected heights.

(Tr. 15, Finding 5). At step five, the ALJ concluded there were jobs in

significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform.

(Tr. 19, Finding 10). Based on these findings, the ALJ concluded that

Plaintiff was not disabled. (Tr. 20, Finding 11).

IV. Discussion

Plaintiff argues, inter alia, that this matter should be remanded

because the ALJ failed to fully develop the record and adequately

consider the side effects of Plaintiffs medications. (Doc. 10 at 5-20). The

Court agrees.3

3 Although Plaintiff has made other arguments, it is unnecessary to

address them because remand is warranted on Plaintiff’s argument

regarding the failure to consider medication side effects. See Demenech

v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 913 F.2d 882, 884 (11th Cir.

1990) (finding it unnecessary to address remaining issues because

remanding on one issue); see also Tammy C. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No.

3:20-cv-00074, 2021 WL 9666636, at *13 n. 26 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2021)

(stating that “since remand is required for further proceedings that could

impact the ALJ’s assessment of the other issues raised . . . the Court need

not address the remaining issues”).

It is well settled that “[b]ecause a hearing before an ALJ is not an

adversary proceeding, the ALJ has a basic obligation to develop a full and

fair record.” Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981).

That obligation “exists even if the claimant is represented by counsel.”

Id. The Eleventh Circuit has “said that the side effects of medications

could render a claimant disabled or contribute to [] disability, and the

ALJ has a duty to investigate these side effects.” Brown v. Comm’r of

Soc. Sec., 680 F. App’x 822, 826 (11th Cir. 2017); see also McDevitt v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 241 F. App’x 615, 619 (11th Cir. 2007) (“We have

stated that an ALJ has a duty to investigate the possible side effects of

medications taken by a claimant.”). Thus, an ALJ fails to satisfy her

obligation to develop the record fully if she “neither elict[s] testimony nor

ma[kes] any findings regarding the effect of [the claimant’s] prescribed

medications upon [the claimant’s] ability to work.” Cowart, 662 F.2d at

735 (reversing and remanding in part because the ALJ failed to discuss

the side effects of the claimant’s medications, and “[i]t is conceivable that

the side effects of medication could render a claimant disabled or at least

contribute to a disability”).

Based on the foregoing, numerous courts have held that remand is

appropriate when the record shows a claimant has complained of

medication side effects but the ALJ’s decision did not discuss the side

effects in determining the claimant’s ability to work. See, e.g., McDevitt,

241 F. App’x at 619 (remanding because the ALJ failed to discuss the

claimant’s testimony that his medication caused him extreme lack of

concentration and made him sleepy); Bigelow v. Astrue, No. CV 307-066,

2009 WL 464084, at *3-4 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 24, 2009) (remanding because

the ALJ “did not discuss, let alone fully develop the record” concerning

the claimant’s medication side effects despite evidence in the record that

claimant was on a variety of medications and testified that the

medication side effects impacted her ability to work); Harris v. Astrue,

No. 2:09-cv-00765, 2010 WL 3583047, at *6-7 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 7, 2010)

(remanding because the ALJ should have made a “finding regarding the

alleged side effects of prescription medications on [the claimant’s] ability

to work and the absence of a finding does not permit the court to

determine whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial

evidence”); Tolbert v. Berryhill, No. 5:18-cv-849, 2019 WL 3817641, at *4

(N.D. Ala. Aug. 14, 2019) (remanding because the ALJ failed to discuss

the claimant’s medication side effects).

In the current case, Plaintiff’s medical records show that he was

prescribed a variety of different medications for various ailments. (See,

e.g., Tr. 509, 521, 776). At the hearing, Plaintiff testified regarding the

side effects of his medications. More specifically, he said that the

medications made it difficult for him to concentrate and focus. (Tr. 50).

He stated that the medications contributed to him making mistakes at

work, and he testified that the medications affected his ability to sleep.

(Tr. 50-51). And when Plaintiff’s counsel questioned the Vocational

Expert, he inquired about how an individual’s inability to concentrate

could impact his ability to work. (Tr. 61).

Despite Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the side effects of his

medication (namely their negative impact on his ability to concentrate

and focus), the ALJ’s decision contains no discussion of those side effects.

While the ALJ was not required to accept Plaintiff’s testimony regarding

the medication side effects, the ALJ cannot ignore the medication side

effects entirely. Here, as in Cowart and the other cases cited above, the

ALJ failed to fully develop the record because she made no findings

“regarding the effect of [Plaintiff’s] prescribed medications upon [his]

ability to work.” Cowart, 662 F.2d at 737.4 To be clear, the Court is

making no determination regarding whether Plaintiff’s medication side

effects impact his ability to work. Instead, the Court “simply concludes

that the record needs to be developed further concerning the effects that

Plaintiff’s medication has on [him]” and his ability to work. Bigelow,

2009 WL 464084, at *4. Accordingly, this matter will be remanded.

V. Conclusion

For the reasons above, the Commissioner’s decision is

REVERSED. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion under sentence four of

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of September 2024.

/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho

Zachary C. Bolitho

United States Magistrate Judge

4 The current case is distinguishable from Walker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

404 F. App’x 362 (11th Cir. 2010), on which Defendant relies. In Walker,

the ALJ’s decision discussed the claimant’s testimony regarding the

medication side effects and concluded that the hallucinations that the

claimant attributed to her medication “were not disabling because they

lasted only one or two minutes and [the claimant] had learned to ignore

them.” Id. at 366-67. Here, in contrast, the ALJ’s decision contains no

discussion of the medication side effects of which Plaintiff complained.