Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, Bipolar Disorder and Borderline Intellectual Functioning.

In this case, a non-examining psychologist acting as a state agency consultant, Dr. Telford-Tyler, completed a mental RFC assessment and stated, in part: “The claimant could benefit from close supportive supervision. The claimant may have episodic interruptions to a normal workweek secondary to psychologically based symptoms.” 
The Administrative Law Judge discussed other medical reports and opinions, but not the one by Dr. Telford-Tyler.  The ALJ did not assign any weight to the opinion of Dr. Telford-Tyler, “nor did she provide any explanation as to why she did not include or otherwise account for” this medical opinion.

The court found that “the weight afforded to these opinions, particularly Dr. Telford-Tyler’s opinion concerning episodic interruptions in a normal workweek, could very well result in a more restrictive [residual functional capacity] than the ALJ’s current RFC determination.”

In remanding the case, the court stated that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

The court noted that:

“In Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011), the Eleventh Circuit held that whenever a physician offers a statement reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis, and prognosis, what the claimant can still do despite his or her impairments, and the claimant’s physical and mental restrictions, the statement is an opinion requiring the ALJ to state with particularity the weight given to it and the reasons therefor. Id. at 1178-79 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2); Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987)).”

Vermillion v. Commissioner of Social Security, Case No. 6:12-cv-1572-Orl-GJK (D. M.D. Fla., Orlando Div., March 7, 2014).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6822909597271253781&q=social+security&hl=en&as_sdt=40000003&as_ylo=2014