USCA11 Case: 22-13309 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 11/20/2023 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13309
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
BRIAN JAMES WEIDLICH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-01226-SPF
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13309 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 11/20/2023 Page: 2 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13309
Before WILSON, LUCK, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Brian Weidlich appeals a magistrate judge’s order 1 affirming
the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s denial of his
claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. Af-
ter careful review, we reverse.
I.
Weidlich, age 51, applied for a period of disability and disa-
bility insurance benefits in February 2019, alleging that he had be-
come disabled in October 2018. In his disability application,
Weidlich reported insomnia, knee osteoarthritis, a surgically re-
paired meniscus tear, neck spasms, herniated and bulging discs, and
a rotator cuff tear. In October 2020, Weidlich had a hearing before
an administrative law judge (ALJ) where Weidlich, his wife, and a
vocational expert testified.
In November 2020, the ALJ issued a decision. The ALJ ap-
plied the five-step sequential evaluation process in
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a) 2 to determine whether Weidlich was
1 Both parties consented to a magistrate judge to conduct a trial and enter a
final judgment.
2 The steps ask whether the claimant (1) is engaged in substantial gainful activ-
ity; (2) has a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of im-
pairments; (3) has an impairment that meets or equals a listed impairment and
meets the duration requirements; (4) can perform past relevant work, in light
of the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) determination; and (5) can
USCA11 Case: 22-13309 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 11/20/2023 Page: 3 of 7
22-13309 Opinion of the Court 3
disabled and found the following. First, Weidlich had not engaged
in substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date. Second,
Weidlich had two severe impairments: spine disorders and dysfunc-
tion of the major joints. Third, Weidlich did not have impairments
that met or equaled the severity of an impairment listed in 20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Rather, after considering
all the evidence, the ALJ found that Weidlich had the residual func-
tional capacity (RFC) to perform “light work” except he could fre-
quently climb ramps and stairs; occasionally climb ladders, ropes,
and scaffolds; frequently balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl;
and was limited to frequent in any direction with his left arm.
In determining Weidlich’s RFC, the ALJ considered all the
evidence. This included (1) Weidlich’s testimony detailing his pain
following an accident in October 2018; (2) state agency consultants
Dr. Phil Matar’s and Dr. David Guttman’s medical opinions, which
the ALJ found supported by the medical evidence, generally con-
sistent with the record, and generally persuasive; and (3) the medi-
cal opinion of Dr. Frederick McClimans, Weidlich’s treating physi-
cian, which the ALJ found to be supported by an August 2019 eval-
uation, partially consistent with the record, and also generally per-
suasive.
At step four, the ALJ found that Weidlich was unable to per-
form any past relevant work as a construction worker. At step five,
make an adjustment to other work, in light of her RFC, age, education, and
work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v); Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011).
USCA11 Case: 22-13309 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 11/20/2023 Page: 4 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13309
the ALJ asked the vocational expert whether jobs existed in the na-
tional economy for an individual with Weidlich’s age, education,
work experience, and RFC. The vocational expert testified that
Weidlich could work as a laundry sorter, potato chip sorter, and
bottle label inspector. Accordingly, the ALJ found that Weidlich
could make a successful adjustment to other work that existed in
significant numbers in the national economy, and therefore
Weidlich was not disabled from his alleged onset date through the
decision date.
Weidlich sought review of the Commissioner’s decision in
the District Court. In a joint memorandum, Weidlich argued that
the ALJ inadequately evaluated Dr. McClimans’s medical opinion.
The magistrate judge affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, find-
ing that (1) Weidlich failed to show that the ALJ erred in evaluating
Dr. McClimans’s opinion and (2) substantial evidence supported
the ALJ’s RFC assessment. Weidlich timely appealed.
II.
We review a social security disability case to determine
whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s deci-
sion and review de novo whether the correct legal standards were
applied. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam). Substantial evidence is any relevant evidence greater than
a scintilla that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to sup-
port a conclusion. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir.
1997). If substantial evidence supports the conclusion, we must af-
firm the ALJ’s decision, even if the evidence preponderates against
USCA11 Case: 22-13309 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 11/20/2023 Page: 5 of 7
22-13309 Opinion of the Court 5
it. Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158–59 (11th Cir.
2004) (per curiam). We may not decide the facts anew, make cred-
ibility determinations, or reweigh the evidence. Winschel v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011).
III.
Weidlich argues that the Commissioner’s decision should be
reversed because the ALJ inadequately evaluated Dr. McClimans’s
medical opinion. Specifically, Weidlich challenges the ALJ’s RFC
assessment, asserting that the ALJ failed to incorporate Dr. McCli-
mans’s opinion, which the ALJ found generally persuasive and sup-
ported. Despite agreeing with Dr. McClimans’s opinion that
Weidlich “could never lift more than 10 pounds,” the ALJ found
that Weidlich could perform “light work,” which involves lifting up
to twenty pounds. Weidlich challenges the ALJ‘s failure to explain
this inconsistency. We agree with Weidlich that the ALJ committed
reversible error by not providing a clear explanation for not adopt-
ing the limitations outlined in Dr. McClimans’s opinion.
Dr. McClimans opined that Weidlich could infrequently lift
up to ten pounds, occasionally lift up to five pounds, and never lift
more than ten pounds. The ALJ found this opinion generally per-
suasive, supported by an August 2019 evaluation, and partially con-
sistent with the overall medical records. The ALJ noted a need for
“slightly greater limitations” due to ongoing mild weakness in
Weidlich’s left arm and neck pain, as well as “additional postural
and environmental limitations” from orthopedic complaints, in-
cluding residuals of right knee arthroscopic repair. Despite these
USCA11 Case: 22-13309 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 11/20/2023 Page: 6 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 22-13309
findings, the ALJ concluded that Weidlich had the RFC for “light
work,” which involves lifting up to 20 pounds. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1567(b).
Social Security Ruling 96-8p (SSR 96-8p) provides that the
ALJ must explain and address any conflicts between the RFC and
medical opinions. See SSR 96–8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7 ( July 2,
1996). 3 The ALJ’s RFC assessment conflicts with Dr. McClimans’s
medical opinion, and the absence of a clear explanation violates
SSR 96-8p and constitutes reversible error. See Owens v. Heckler, 748
F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). Substantial evidence
cannot support the ALJ’s decision without a clear explanation. See
Cowart v. Schweiker, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981).
While the ALJ hinted at the state agency consultants’ opin-
ions being more supported, the overall inconsistency in the ALJ’s
finding remains unclear. Especially given that the ALJ found Dr.
McClimans’s opinion equally persuasive and that even “slightly
greater limitations” than those stated in Dr. McClimans’s opinion
were warranted. So despite potential rationale, the absence of a
clear explanation renders the ALJ’s RFC assessment unsupported
by substantial evidence. See Cowart, 662 F.2d at 735.
3 Social security rulings are binding on the SSA. Noble v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
963 F.3d 1317, 1324 n.12 (11th Cir. 2020). While they do not bind us, we afford
them deference. Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-13309 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 11/20/2023 Page: 7 of 7
22-13309 Opinion of the Court 7
IV.
The District Court’s decision is REVERSED, and the action
is REMANDED to the District Court with instructions to remand
to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The
ALJ must explain in writing why he did not adopt the limitations in
Dr. McClimans’s medical opinion. Alternatively, the ALJ may reas-
sess Weidlich’s RFC and, if necessary, submit a new hypothetical
question to a vocational expert to determine whether jobs exist in
the national economy for an individual with Weidlich’s age, educa-
tion, work experience, and RFC. We emphasize that no result is
dictated by our remand.