Mills v. Astrue

16 Citing cases

  1. Holloman v. Colvin

    CV 315-006 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 19, 2016)

    It is the province of the ALJ to examine the entirety of the record evidence and deliver a decision that weighs that evidence in its totality. See Caulder v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 872, 877-78 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Mills v. Astrue, 226 F. App'x 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"); Martin v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 1027, 1031 (5th Cir. 1984) (noting it to be "inappropriate on judicial review for the first time to apply administrative criteria not themselves considered by the [Commissioner]"). Because the additional evidence must be considered and weighed against the totality of the record evidence, the Court need not address Plaintiff's remaining contention that the ALJ improperly discounted treating physician Dr. Rosenbaum's opinion.

  2. Jackson v. Colvin

    CV 315-010 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 15, 2015)

    A mere statement by the Commissioner that the new evidence would not ultimately change the disability determination will not suffice because it is the province of the ALJ to examine the entirety of the record evidence and deliver a decision that weighs that evidence in its totality. See Caulder v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 872, 877-78 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Mills v. Astrue, 226 F. App'x 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"); Martin v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 1027, 1031 (5th Cir. 1984) (noting it to be "inappropriate on judicial review for the first time to apply administrative criteria not themselves considered by the [Commissioner]"). Because the additional evidence must be considered and weighed against the totality of the record evidence, the Court need not address Plaintiff's remaining contention that the ALJ's evaluation of the medical opinion evidence, conducted without the additional evidence, was improper.

  3. Shirey v. Astrue

    Case No. 3:09-cv-312-J-JRK (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2010)   Cited 1 times
    Finding the ALJ erred by not addressing the claimant's explanation that she did not have money to visit the doctor on a more regular basis

    "Generally, the opinions of examining physicians are given more weight than non-examining, treating more than non-treating, and specialists on issues within their areas of expertise more weight than non-specialists." Mills v. Astrue, 226 F.App'x 926, 930 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), (2) and (5)). Nevertheless, "the opinion of a treating physician `must be given substantial or considerable weight unless "good cause" is shown to the contrary.'" Id. (quoting Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240).

  4. Ingram v. O'Malley

    7:23-cv-00653-LSC (N.D. Ala. Aug. 7, 2024)

    Thus, although the ALJ does appear to not mention consistency or supportability, there was not sufficient evidence for him to be able to do so. Because their findings correlate with the ALJ's ultimate finding, any error in the ALJ failing to adequately explain these factors is harmless, as described in greater detail below. Mills v. Astrue, 226 Fed.Appx. 926, 931 (11th Cir. 2007) (“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.

  5. 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)

  6. 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)

  7. 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)

  8. Martin v. Kijakazi

    CV 120-169 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 7, 2022)   Cited 6 times

    However, the Court cannot now engage in an administrative review that was not done in the first instance at the administrative level, but rather must examine the administrative decision as delivered. Mills v. Astrue, 226 Fed.Appx. 926, 931-32 (11th Cir. 2007)

  9. Collins v. Saul

    CV 319-042 (S.D. Ga. Jun. 29, 2020)

    The Commissioner's attempt at a post-hoc explanation of why the omitted consideration of all of Plaintiff's impairments was warranted, or does not otherwise change the disability determination, cannot excuse the error because the Court cannot now engage in an administrative review that was not done in the first instance at the administrative level, but rather must examine the administrative decision as delivered. Mills v. Astrue, 226 F. App'x 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"); see also Martin v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 1027, 1031 (5th Cir. 1984) (noting it to be "inappropriate on judicial review for the first time to apply administrative criteria not themselves considered by the [Commissioner]"). The Court offers no opinion on what a complete and accurate review of the administrative record might conclude on Plaintiff's disability application, but the Court cannot conclude that the decision as reported by the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence.

  10. Bufford v. Berryhill

    CV 118-034 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 19, 2019)

    The Court cannot now engage in an administrative review that was not done in the first instance at the administrative level, but rather must examine the administrative decision as delivered. Mills v. Astrue, 226 F. App'x 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"); see also Martin v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 1027, 1031 (5th Cir. 1984) (noting it to be "inappropriate on judicial review for the first time to apply administrative criteria not themselves considered by the [Commissioner]"). The Court offers no opinion on what a complete and accurate review of the administrative record might conclude on Plaintiff's disability applications, but the Court cannot conclude that the decision as reported by the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence.