Introduction

In this unpublished but instructive decision, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to Marta Gonzalez Castillo. Two issues were presented: (1) whether the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by admitting and relying on a Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit (CDIU) report that contained hearsay and (2) whether the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) determination was supported by substantial evidence.

The court’s ruling is significant for Social Security practice in the Eleventh Circuit. It clarifies that CDIU reports—often containing surveillance observations and third-party statements—may be treated as reliable and probative hearsay and may constitute substantial evidence when the J.A.M. Builders reliability factors are met. Importantly, the court confirms that, under the post‑2017 Social Security regulations, ALJs may use such non-medical evidence to discount medical opinions without affording “special weight” to any doctor’s view. The decision also reiterates the limited nature of appellate review in Social Security cases: courts do not reweigh conflicting evidence if the ALJ’s findings rest on substantial evidence.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Eleventh Circuit held that the ALJ did not err by admitting and relying on a CDIU report documenting claimant’s activities (shopping, walking without assistive devices, entering a PIN, carrying bags) and a store manager’s statements; the report met the reliability criteria applicable to hearsay in administrative hearings.
• The court rejected the claimant’s due process argument, emphasizing that she had the report several months before the hearing and could have subpoenaed the declarants but did not.
• Under the post‑2017 regulations, the ALJ permissibly considered “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including the CDIU report and claimant’s own testimony, to find certain medical opinions unpersuasive.
• The ALJ’s RFC finding—sedentary work with specified postural, hazard, and social/mental limitations, and the capacity to carry out Reasoning Level 2 instructions—was supported by substantial evidence despite conflicting medical statements about the need for a walker.
• Result: Affirmed.

Factual Background in Brief

Gonzalez Castillo applied for SSI on July 25, 2019, alleging disability from June 27, 2017, due to multiple physical and mental impairments. The record included:

• Dr. John J. Catano (Sept. 2019): Abnormal gait; use of wheelchair deemed medically necessary “at that time.”
• CDIU report (Oct. 2019): Surveillance video showed claimant walking (with a limp) without a walker or wheelchair, completing transactions, entering a PIN, carrying groceries, and interacting with staff; store manager stated she usually shopped alone without a cane or walker.
• Dr. Paul Feria (Aug. 2020, mental status): Emotional withdrawal, poor focus, impoverished judgment; diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, depressive type.
• Dr. Rosanna Perez (Aug. 2020, physical exam): Left hip/lower back pain; normal strength/motor; walker deemed medically necessary.

At the hearing, claimant acknowledged she did not use a walker except when going to the clinic. The ALJ overruled an objection to the CDIU report, clarifying reliance would be on observations rather than legal/medical conclusions. The ALJ found severe impairments but an RFC for sedentary work with specified limitations; discounted Dr. Catano’s and (to a lesser degree) Dr. Feria’s opinions; found Dr. Perez’s opinion more persuasive but not determinative on the walker requirement; and, crediting vocational expert testimony, found jobs existed that claimant could perform. The Appeals Council denied review; the district court affirmed; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• 42 U.S.C. § 405(b)(1): In Social Security disability hearings, the strict rules of evidence do not apply; evidence inadmissible in court may be received. This statutory flexibility undergirds admission of hearsay in SSA proceedings.
• Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971): A landmark decision holding that hearsay medical reports can constitute substantial evidence when they have “underlying reliability and probative value.” Perales also emphasizes that due process concerns are addressed where the claimant has the opportunity to subpoena and cross-examine the declarants; failure to invoke that right undercuts due process claims.
• J.A.M. Builders, Inc. v. Herman, 233 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2000): Sets out a four-factor test for hearsay reliability in administrative proceedings: (1) lack of bias/interest; (2) opportunity to obtain the information pre-hearing and to subpoena declarants; (3) internal consistency; and (4) inherent reliability recognized by courts.
• Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011): Describes the five-step sequential evaluation process and reiterates that reviewing courts do not reweigh evidence.
• Samuels v. Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 959 F.3d 1042 (11th Cir. 2020): Confirms that when the Appeals Council denies review, the ALJ’s decision is the Commissioner’s final decision for judicial review.
• Raper v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 89 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2024): Clarifies standards of review: de novo for legal errors; substantial evidence for factual findings; courts do not decide facts anew, make credibility determinations, or reweigh evidence.
• 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(a), 404.1545(a)(3), 416.920, 416.945: Post‑2017 regulations require ALJs to evaluate the persuasiveness of medical opinions without deferring to any particular source (including treating physicians) and to base RFC on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”

How the Court Applied These Authorities

The court affirmed on both issues, applying the above authorities as follows.

1) Admission and Reliance on the CDIU Report

The panel held that the CDIU report satisfied the J.A.M. Builders four-factor reliability test:

• Bias/interest: The report’s primary author, a Social Security Administration agent acting in an adjudicative capacity, is presumed impartial under Perales. There was no evidence of bias by the store manager.
• Opportunity to obtain/subpoena: The claimant had the report months before the hearing and could have subpoenaed the SSA agent and the store manager but did not. This opportunity defeats the claim that admission violated due process.
• Facial consistency: Although one section referenced a different date/claimant and suggested English proficiency for a naturalized citizen, those were clerical errors that did not undermine the core observational content (video of ambulation without assistive devices, transactions, carrying items). On the whole, the report was internally consistent as to facts relied upon.
• Inherent reliability: Reports generated by the SSA in an adjudicative capacity are generally considered reliable. The court cited Perales to reinforce that principle.

The court also emphasized that the ALJ properly limited reliance to observational content rather than any legal or medical “conclusions” in the report. Given the above, the CDIU report was both admissible and capable of constituting substantial evidence.

2) Use of CDIU to Evaluate Medical Opinions under the Post‑2017 Regulations

The claimant argued that the CDIU report could not be used to rebut medical opinions (particularly Drs. Catano and Feria). The Eleventh Circuit rejected that argument. For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, ALJs:

• Must consider “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” (20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3)); and
• “Need not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight” to “any medical opinion” (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a)).

Applying those rules, the ALJ permissibly found Dr. Catano’s wheelchair opinion and Dr. Feria’s mental limitations “not consistent with the record as a whole,” citing the CDIU evidence and claimant’s own testimony. Conversely, Dr. Perez’s opinion was treated as more persuasive, but not dispositive on the specific question whether a walker was medically necessary at all times. The court endorsed this record-wide evaluation of persuasiveness.

3) Substantial Evidence Supporting the RFC

The ALJ found a sedentary RFC with specific postural, hazard, pace/adaptation, reasoning, and limited interaction capacities. The court declined the claimant’s invitation to reweigh conflicting evidence:

• Mental RFC: The ALJ accounted for claimant’s mental impairments, including medication-related improvements and the absence of psychiatric hospitalization during the relevant period. Reliance on longitudinal treatment and function evidence was upheld.
• Physical RFC and Assistive Device: Despite Dr. Perez’s notation of walker necessity, other evidence, including the CDIU video and claimant’s admission that she used a walker only when going to the clinic, supported the ALJ’s finding that a walker was not required for sedentary work. This conflicting evidence scenario falls within the ALJ’s factfinding domain; substantial evidence review is deferential.

With the RFC upheld, the vocational expert’s testimony—grounded in the RFC—supplied substantial evidence that jobs existed in significant numbers for a person with claimant’s profile.

Impact and Practical Implications

A. Evidentiary Landscape: CDIU Reports Carry Real Weight

The decision strengthens the footing for ALJ reliance on CDIU reports. Key takeaways:

• CDIU reports can be substantial evidence if they satisfy the J.A.M. Builders reliability factors, even if they contain hearsay.
• Minor clerical errors will not invalidate otherwise coherent and corroborated observational content.
• ALJs should articulate that they rely on factual observations (e.g., video, first-hand descriptions) rather than any legal/medical conclusions contained within the report.

B. The Post‑2017 Medical Opinion Framework Is Dispositive

The court reiterates that no medical source gets automatic deference for claims filed after March 27, 2017. This matters when CDIU observations conflict with medical statements:

• ALJs may find a medical opinion unpersuasive if contradicted by credible non-medical evidence (e.g., surveillance, claimant admissions).
• Practitioners should not assume that a single clinical statement (e.g., a walker is “medically necessary”) will carry the day if functional evidence suggests otherwise.

C. Due Process and Subpoena Strategy

The court tied due process to the opportunity—not the right realized—to cross-examine via subpoena. Practical consequences:

• On receiving a CDIU report, claimants should promptly consider subpoenaing the SSA agent and any third-party declarants (e.g., store managers) to probe context, accuracy, vantage points, and the representativeness of observed activities.
• Failure to act within the available pre-hearing window will likely foreclose due process arguments on appeal.

D. RFC Disputes: The “Substantial Evidence” Barrier

The court underscores the highly deferential “substantial evidence” standard. In practice:

• Where the record is mixed, well-explained ALJ decisions are likely to be affirmed.
• Claimants must build a consistent, longitudinal record and directly address contrary evidence, especially video or third-party observations that appear to contradict alleged limitations.

E. Scope of Persuasive Authority

The opinion is unpublished and therefore not binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. However, it is citable as persuasive authority and provides a concrete application of Perales, J.A.M. Builders, and the post‑2017 SSA regulations to CDIU evidence. Expect ALJs and district courts within the Circuit to treat this analysis as a useful roadmap.

Practice Pointers

• For claimants/counsel: If a CDIU report surfaces, seek the underlying video promptly; consider affidavits from treating providers explaining variability (good/bad days), the limited probative value of snapshot observations, and the medical rationale for assistive devices; subpoena declarants where credibility or context is at issue.
• For ALJs: When admitting CDIU evidence, explicitly address the J.A.M. Builders factors; distinguish between factual observations and any embedded conclusory statements; tie RFC findings to multiple record sources to fortify substantial evidence support.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• CDIU Report: A Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit report typically includes surveillance, interviews, and investigative findings about a claimant’s daily activities to assess consistency with alleged limitations.
• Hearsay in SSA Hearings: Statements made outside the hearing offered for the truth. Unlike court trials, SSA hearings may admit hearsay if it is reliable and probative. Reliability is assessed using the J.A.M. Builders factors.
• Subpoena Right: Claimants can request subpoenas to compel witnesses (e.g., CDIU investigators, third parties) to testify. Not using this right generally defeats later due process complaints about inability to cross-examine.
• Residual Functional Capacity (RFC): The most a claimant can do despite impairments, determined from all evidence (medical and non-medical). It is used at steps four and five of the disability analysis.
• Substantial Evidence: A deferential standard. The question is not whether the court would reach the same conclusion, but whether a reasonable person could accept the evidence as adequate to support the ALJ’s findings.
• Sedentary Work: Work mainly involving sitting, with occasional walking/standing and lifting/carrying up to 10 pounds; often used as a baseline for limited physical capacity jobs.
• DOT Reasoning Level 2: From the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. It denotes the capacity to apply commonsense understanding to carry out detailed but uninvolved written or oral instructions—commonly compatible with many unskilled jobs.
• Post‑2017 Medical Opinion Rules: For claims filed on/after March 27, 2017, ALJs no longer give “controlling” or “special” weight to treating sources; instead, they evaluate the persuasiveness of all opinions based on supportability and consistency, among other factors.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Marta Gonzalez Castillo v. Commissioner of Social Security clarifies two pivotal points in modern Social Security adjudication. First, CDIU reports can be reliable hearsay and substantial evidence when they satisfy the J.A.M. Builders factors; minor clerical errors will not negate otherwise consistent, corroborated observations. Second, under the post‑2017 regulatory framework, ALJs may weigh such non-medical evidence against medical opinions without affording any source special deference, provided the RFC is grounded in “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.”

For litigants, the message is practical and urgent: respond swiftly and concretely to CDIU evidence, employ subpoenas when credibility or context matters, and marshal longitudinal, consistent records that directly engage contradictory observations. For adjudicators, the opinion offers a structured path to analyzing hearsay reliability and synthesizing mixed evidence into a defensible RFC. While unpublished, the ruling is poised to influence how CDIU evidence and medical opinion persuasiveness are handled across the Eleventh Circuit in the SSI and disability context.