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).
Thus, any error is harmless. See Mills v. Astrue, 226 Fed.Appx. 926, 931 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[W]hen an incorrect application of the regulation results in harmless error because the correct application would not contradict the ALJ's ultimate findings, the ALJ's decision will stand.”)
Id. at *4; see also Turrentine v. Kijakazi, 2021 WL 3421404, at *5 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 5, 2021) (finding that the ALJ's failure to adequately explain how she considered the supportability and consistency of a medical opinion “is harmless [error] when a correct application of the regulations would not contradict the ALJ's findings.”) (citing Mills v. Astrue, 226 Fed.Appx. 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.”))
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.
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.”)
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.
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)
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)
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”).
To do that would require reweighing the evidence, which “invades the province of the ALJ.” See Mills v. Astrue, 226 Fed.Appx. 926, 931 (11th Cir. 2007) (remanding when substantial evidence didn't support ALJ's articulated reasons for discounting medical opinion even though there was evidence in the record that supported ALJ's final decision); see also McCloud v. Barnhart, 166 Fed.Appx. 410, 418 (11th Cir. 2006) (rejecting Commissioner's argument that error was harmless when ALJ misunderstood severity of symptoms that GAF score reflected); Talbot v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 383 Fed.Appx. 843, 845 (11th Cir. 2010) (finding remand warranted when ALJ misunderstood pain scale severity rating in making credibility determination).