Mills v. Astrue

27 Citing cases

  1. Pate v. Colvin

    Case No.: 4:14-CV-2197-VEH (N.D. Ala. Mar. 18, 2016)

    Pate is correct that these are errors (the first is a particularly egregious error of law), but they are harmless. See 28 U.S.C. § 2111; Mills v. Astrue, 226 F. App'x. 926, 931 (11th Cir. 2007) ("[W]hen an incorrect application of the regulations results in harmless error because the correct application would not contradict the ALJ's ultimate findings, the ALJ's decision will stand."); accord Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726, 728 (11th Cir. 1983); cf. Prevatte v. French, 547 F.3d 1300, 1305 (11th Cir. 2008) (district court may raise harmlessness of error sua sponte in habeas review). Despite the styling of Pate's first argument as an objection to a truism in the world of Social Security appeals—that determination of disability is reserved to the Commissioner—it is more accurately stated as a complaint that the ALJ completely disregarded the physician's opinion because, the ALJ says, the issue of disability is reserved to the Commissioner. If that is the real fuss here, Pate is right: the ALJ cannot do that.

  2. Ovington v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    Case No: 6:11-cv-1319-Orl-31GJK (M.D. Fla. Jul. 3, 2012)

    Doc. No. 16 at 7. The Eleventh Circuit has stated that "when an incorrect application of the regulations results in harmless error because the correct application would not contradict the ALJ's ultimate findings, the ALJ's decision will stand." Mills v. Astrue, 226 F. App'x. 926, 931-32 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (citing Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.3d 726, 728 (11th Cir. 1983). In this case, Dr. Caraballo's opinion provides that Claimant's right ear canal was very painful, had some drainage, and decreased hearing acuity, but the mastoid area appeared intact.

  3. Fletcher v. O'Malley

    4:24-cv-117-CLM (N.D. Ala. Nov. 18, 2024)

    meant that their opinions were relevant. So while the court could guess about how persuasive the ALJ found Dr. Blotcky and Dr. Bennett's opinions, “[t]o do so would call for conjecture that invades the province of the ALJ.” Mills v. Astrue, 226 Fed.Appx. 926, 931 (11th Cir. 2007).

  4. Sands v. O'Malley

    4:23-cv-163-CLM (N.D. Ala. Feb. 5, 2024)

    And the court cannot guess whether the ALJ would say that Dr. Nichols' mental status exam findings also showed normal cognition, adequate attention, and intact memory. Mills v. Astrue, 226 Fed.Appx. 926, 931 (11th Cir. 2007) (Re-weighing the evidence “would invade[ ] the province of the ALJ.”)

  5. Parker v. O'Malley

    4:22-cv-999-CLM (N.D. Ala. Feb. 1, 2024)

    The court cannot speculate how evidence of the missed appointment would affect the ALJ's evaluation of Dr. Estock's opinion without re-weighing the evidence, which “would invade[ ] the province of the ALJ.” Mills v. Astrue, 226 Fed.Appx. 926, 931 (11th Cir. 2007). Plus, how persuasive the ALJ found Dr. Estock's opinion that Parker will miss 1-2 days of work a month was important because the vocational expert testified that Parker couldn't maintain employment if he were to miss more than one day of work per month.

  6. Rosinski v. O'Malley

    CV 123-031 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 26, 2024)

    Indeed, the Court cannot now engage in an administrative review that was not done in the first instance by the Commissioner. Mills v. Astrue, 226 Fed.Appx. 926, 931-32 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)

  7. Tutt v. Kijakazi

    CV 123-032 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 11, 2023)

    Indeed, the Court cannot now engage in an administrative review that was not done in the first instance by the Commissioner. Mills v. Astrue, 226 Fed.Appx. 926, 931-32 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)

  8. McDaniel v. Kijakazi

    22-cv-21201-KING/DAMIAN (S.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2023)

    The undersigned offers no opinion on what a complete and accurate review of the administrative record might conclude on Ms. McDaniel's disability applications, but the undersigned cannot conclude that the ALJ's Decision is supported by substantial evidence, and, therefore, remand is warranted.See Mills v. Astrue, 226 Fed.Appx. 926, 931-32 (11th Cir. 2007) (acknowledging evidence in the record not mentioned by the ALJ may support administrative decision but concluding that court could not “say the error was harmless without re-weighing the evidence,” which would require “conjecture that invades the province of the ALJ”).

  9. Marshall v. Kijakazi

    No. CV122-029 (S.D. Ga. May. 18, 2023)

    Indeed, the Court cannot now engage in an administrative review that was not done in the first instance by the Commissioner. Mills v. Astrue, 226 Fed.Appx. 926, 931-32 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)

  10. Trotter v. Kijakazi

    CV 121-122 (S.D. Ga. Jun. 21, 2022)

    Indeed, the Court cannot now engage in an administrative review that was not done in the first instance by the Commissioner. Mills v. Astrue, 226 Fed.Appx. 926, 931-32 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)