Sheila Diane Isbell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

USCA11 Case: 22-10938 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/23/2023 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-10938
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
SHEILA DIANE ISBELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
COMMISSIONER,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-01379-SGC
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10938 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/23/2023 Page: 2 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10938
Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sheila Isbell appeals from the district court’s order affirming
the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for a
period of disability and disability insurance benefits. She argues
that the ALJ failed to (1) properly consider her Department of Vet-
erans Affairs disability rating and (2) properly determine her date
of disability.
I
In Social Security appeals, we ask whether the Commis-
sioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Moore
v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005). We review de
novo the legal principles upon which the Commissioner bases the
decision. See id. Because the Appeals Council declined to review
the ALJ’s decision, we review it as the Commissioner’s final deci-
sion. See Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001).
A decision by another government agency that a claimant is
disabled or entitled to benefits is not binding on the SSA and is nei-
ther valuable nor persuasive. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1504,
404.1520b(c)(1), 416.920b(c)(1). Therefore, when considering
claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, the SSA will not provide
any analysis in its decisions about a determination made by another
agency. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504. The SSA, however, will consider
all supporting evidence underlying the other agency’s decision.
See id.USCA11 Case: 22-10938 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/23/2023 Page: 3 of 4
22-10938 Opinion of the Court 3
II
We first address whether the ALJ failed to properly consider
Ms. Isbell’s VA disability rating. Ms. Isbell filed her application for
disability on August 28, 2017, after the March 27, 2017, effective
date of the SSA’s new regulations concerning the weight afforded
other agencies’ disability determinations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504.
The ALJ was therefore not required to (and did not) give weight to
the VA’s disability determination in ruling on Ms. Isbell’s applica-
tion. And because prior versions of § 404.1504 are irrelevant to Ms.
Isbell’s claims, so too are our decisions interpreting that provision.
See, e.g., Noble v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 963 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir.
2020) (discussing § 404.1504 (2016)). Additionally, to the extent
that Ms. Isbell argues that the ALJ failed to consider the evidence
underlying the VA’s disability determination, she waived any such
argument by raising it for the first time in her reply brief. See Ac-
cess Now, Inc. v. S.W. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir.
2004). Nevertheless, our review shows that the ALJ did consider
the underlying evidence, including the VA’s medical records.
We next consider whether the ALJ erred by failing to seek
medical advice concerning the onset date of Ms. Isbell’s disability
under SSR 83-20. In relevant part, SSR 83-20 states that: “In addi-
tion to determining that an individual is disabled, the deci-
sionmaker must also establish the onset date of disability.” SSR 83-
USCA11 Case: 22-10938 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/23/2023 Page: 4 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-10938
20, 1983-1991 Soc. Sec. Rep. Serv. 49 (Jan. 1, 1983). The onset date
of disability is “the first day an individual is disabled.” Id. 1
Accordingly, the ALJ must necessarily determine whether
an applicant is disabled before determining the onset date of disa-
bility. Here, the ALJ found that Ms. Isbell was not disabled and
therefore was not required to determine the onset date of disabil-
ity. Accordingly, because she cannot show that the ALJ erred,
there was no error by the Commissioner. See Doughty, 245 F.3d
at 1278. 2
III
The Commissioner did not err in denying Ms. Isbell’s appli-
cation for a period disability and disability insurance benefits. The
district court’s decision is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
1 “Social Security Rulings are agency rulings ‘published under the authority of
the Commissioner of Social Security and are binding on all components of the
Administration.’” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 n.9 (1990) (citation
omitted).
2 As of October 2, 2018, SSR 18-01p replaced SSR 83-20. See Titles II and XVI:
Determining the Established Onset Date (EOD) in Disability Claims, 83 Fed.
Reg. 49613 (Oct. 2., 2018) (rescinding and replacing SSR 83-20). Under SSR 18-
01p, which came into effect while Ms. Isbell’s application was pending, the ALJ
generally has discretion to determine whether to consult a medical expert to
determine the EOD. See id. Assuming that SSR 18-01p governed her applica-
tion, the ALJ was no longer required to consult a medical expert concerning
her EOD. Compare SSR 83-20, with SSR 81-01p.