Eleventh Circuit Upholds SSA Denial in Dubose v. Commissioner

The Eleventh Circuit’s recent opinion in Dubose v. Commissioner of Social Security offers a valuable refresher on three recurring battlegrounds in Social Security disability appeals: Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) determinations, evaluation of medical opinions, and consideration of new evidence before the Appeals Council.

1. Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) on Remand

Dubose argued that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to comply with the Appeals Council’s directive to reconcile moderate mental limitations in concentration, persistence, pace, and adaptation.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed—finding that the ALJ sufficiently incorporated those limitations into both the RFC and vocational expert (VE) hypotheticals.

Key Takeaway:Even without using “magic words,” substantial evidence showing how limitations are addressed will typically satisfy review standards.

2. Medical Opinion Evidence: Supportability & Consistency

Treating psychiatrist Dr. Ahmadi opined that Dubose could not sustain full-time work. The ALJ discounted this opinion, citing:

• Dubose’s daily activities (driving children, managing finances, gaming, socializing)

• Inconsistencies with other treatment notes

  
  

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court emphasized that while ALJs must evaluate supportability and consistency under § 404.1520c, they are not required to use those exact terms.

Practical Note: The decision echoes Raper v. Commissioner (2024), confirming that clarity in reasoning trumps formalistic phrasing.

3. New Evidence Before the Appeals Council

Dubose also submitted additional treatment records and a statement from Dr. Ahmadi. The Appeals Council denied review, finding no “reasonable probability” the evidence would change the outcome.

The Eleventh Circuit agreed, characterizing the new evidence as cumulative of what was already in the record.

Lesson:New evidence must materially add something not already reflected in the file to warrant Appeals Council review.

⚖️ The Big Picture

This case underscores the deferential nature of the “substantial evidence” standard. Courts will not reweigh evidence or substitute their own judgment for that of the ALJ.

For practitioners, the lesson is clear:The fight is often won—or lost—at the ALJ level. Once an ALJ’s decision is backed by reasonable evidence, overturning it on appeal is an uphill battle.

💬 Q&A: Key Practitioner Insights

Q: Does this mean the Eleventh Circuit is giving ALJs too much leeway on supportability and consistency?

A: It may appear so, but the trend reflects judicial restraint rather than bias. The Eleventh Circuit expects clarity in reasoning, not formulaic language.

Practitioners should ensure the record demonstrates how the ALJ’s findings align with or depart from the evidence.

Author’s Note: If you handle Social Security appeals, understanding how the Eleventh Circuit interprets “substantial evidence” can help you shape stronger administrative records and anticipate appellate challenges.

Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.