Courts Review SSA Decisions Under Rules In Effect When Issued: Eleventh Circuit Declines Retroactive Application of SSR 24-2p and Affirms ALJ’s Evidence Evaluation in Minnis v. Commissioner
Introduction
In Lutisha Minnis v. Commissioner of Social Security (No. 24-11281, 11th Cir. Apr. 1, 2025) (per curiam) (non-argument calendar) (unpublished), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court judgment upholding an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income to a 55-year-old former certified nursing assistant and billing clerk. The appeal presented four issues: (1) whether Social Security Ruling (SSR) 24-2p—which shortens the “past relevant work” (PRW) look-back period from 15 years to 5 years—applies retroactively; (2) whether the ALJ failed to address or assess certain medical conditions (notably 2019 knee x-rays and the combined effect of obesity); (3) whether the ALJ properly evaluated medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings under the post–March 27, 2017 regulations; and (4) whether the ALJ erred in evaluating the claimant’s subjective allegations of symptoms and limitations.
The panel (Judges Jordan, Luck, and Tjoflat) rejected each claim and affirmed, emphasizing both the non-retroactivity of SSR 24-2p to previously issued final agency decisions and the adequacy of the ALJ’s articulation and evidentiary support concerning Minnis’s impairments, medical opinions, and subjective complaints.
Summary of the Opinion
- Retroactivity: SSR 24-2p’s 5-year PRW look-back does not apply retroactively to ALJ decisions issued before its June 22, 2024 effective date. Federal courts review SSA final decisions under the rules in effect when those decisions were issued.
- Medical Conditions: The ALJ adequately considered the record as a whole, including earlier x-ray findings and the combined impact of morbid obesity with other impairments; the ALJ was not required to cite every piece of evidence explicitly.
- Medical Opinions: The ALJ sufficiently articulated the “supportability” and “consistency” bases for persuasiveness findings under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c, even without using “magic words,” and permissibly found the state agency consultant with access to the updated record more persuasive.
- Subjective Symptoms: Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determination that the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the alleged symptoms were not fully consistent with the medical and other evidence.
- Disposition: Affirmed.
Analysis
1) Precedents Cited and How They Shaped the Decision
- Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2001): Establishes that when the Appeals Council denies review, the ALJ’s decision becomes the Commissioner’s final decision for judicial review. This framed the scope of appellate review here.
- Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005) and Crawford v. Commissioner, 363 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir. 2004): Set the substantial-evidence standard (“such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate”) and bar re-weighing the evidence or making credibility determinations anew.
- Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir. 1983): Reinforces the limited nature of substantial-evidence review, which precludes fact-finding and re-weighing on appeal.
- Hargress v. SSA, 883 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2018) and Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (1988): Anchor the non-retroactivity principle for administrative rules. The court relied on these to reject retroactive application of SSR 24-2p.
- Sierra Club v. TVA, 430 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2005): An explicit effective date in a rule weighs against retroactivity; applied here to SSR 24-2p.
- Schink v. Commissioner, 935 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2019): Requires that ALJs consider all impairments in assessing residual functional capacity (RFC).
- Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) and Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553 (11th Cir. 1995): No rigid requirement to cite every piece of evidence; courts look at the decision as a whole and whether the ALJ considered the claimant’s medical condition overall.
- Bowen v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 629 (11th Cir. 1984) and Hudson v. Heckler, 755 F.2d 781 (11th Cir. 1985): Impose a duty to make well-articulated findings on the combined effects of multiple impairments, including obesity.
- SSR 19-2p and SSR 18-3p: Recognize obesity as a medically determinable impairment to be evaluated in combination with others (SSR 19-2p) and clarify that failure to lose weight is not a per se bar to benefits for failing to follow treatment (SSR 18-3p).
- Winschel v. Commissioner, 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011) and Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278 (11th Cir. 1987): Require that ALJs state the weight (now, persuasiveness) given to medical opinions and the reasons for that determination.
- Raper v. Commissioner, 89 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2024): “No magic words” are required when articulating supportability and consistency; courts read the ALJ decision as a whole for clarity of reasoning.
- Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436 (11th Cir. 1997): Clarifies “more than a scintilla” evidentiary threshold under substantial evidence review.
- Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2002) and Holt v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1221 (11th Cir. 1991): State the Eleventh Circuit’s two-part pain standard, applied with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 in assessing subjective symptoms.
2) Legal Reasoning
a) SSR 24-2p does not apply retroactively
Minnis argued that SSR 24-2p—shortening the PRW period from 15 to 5 years—should apply to her case so that her prior billing-clerk work would not count at step four. The court disagreed, holding:
- Administrative rules generally do not apply retroactively (Hargress; Bowen v. Georgetown).
- SSR 24-2p’s effective date (June 22, 2024) post-dated the ALJ’s decision (August 26, 2022), and the SSR itself states that federal courts will review SSA final decisions using the rules in effect when the decisions were issued (SSR 24-2p n.1; see 89 Fed. Reg. 48479, June 6, 2024; deferral at 89 Fed. Reg. 48138, June 5, 2024).
- Under Sierra Club v. TVA, an explicit effective date signals prospective application, not retroactivity.
Bottom line: Because the ALJ’s decision preceded the SSR’s effective date, the court reviewed the decision under the then-governing 15-year PRW rule and refused remand based on SSR 24-2p.
b) The ALJ’s assessment of the medical evidence (x-rays and obesity)
On the 2019 x-rays, the court applied Dyer’s “no rigid requirement” principle: an ALJ need not cite every piece of evidence if the decision, read as a whole, shows consideration of the claimant’s condition. The ALJ summarized comparable 2017 x-ray findings from Dr. Shapiro and discussed longitudinal treatment records from Dr. Saxe showing severe bilateral knee osteoarthritis. The hearing transcript further reflected the ALJ’s awareness of possible surgery discussions in Dr. Saxe’s notes. Taken together, the record showed the ALJ understood and weighed the import of the 2019 x-rays even without explicitly citing them.
On obesity, the ALJ identified “morbid obesity” as a severe impairment and expressly evaluated obesity in combination with other conditions, consistent with SSR 19-2p and Eleventh Circuit law (Hudson; Bowen v. Heckler). The ALJ’s reliance on a provider’s recommendation to exercise and lose weight did not penalize Minnis for non-compliance (which would be improper under SSR 18-3p and McCall v. Bowen); instead, the ALJ used that recommendation as evidence that, despite obesity, Minnis could perform activities compatible with the RFC found. The decision reflected careful integration of obesity’s effects into the overall RFC analysis, satisfying the duty to consider combined impairments.
c) Medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings (post–2017 rule)
For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, ALJs do not assign “weight” to medical opinions but must assess their “persuasiveness,” primarily based on supportability and consistency (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c). The Eleventh Circuit reiterated, via Raper, that “no magic words” are required; what matters is clarity and substance when discussing these factors.
- State agency consultants (Drs. Izuegbu and Meade): The ALJ reasonably found Dr. Meade more persuasive because he had access to the updated longitudinal record. The ALJ also highlighted that both consultants’ findings were largely aligned and supported by objective evidence (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, severe knee osteoarthritis, morbid obesity, bilateral crepitus, compensated gait), and were consistent with consultative findings by Dr. Rogovin (e.g., slow gait, reduced ROM across multiple joints).
- Treating sources (PA Gottlieb and Dr. Saxe): The ALJ found PA Gottlieb’s disabling restrictions “not very persuasive” because they were unsupported by her own notes documenting normal ambulation, normal strength, no bony abnormalities, no edema, and sparse objective observations; they were also inconsistent with admissions that medications stabilized rheumatoid arthritis. Dr. Saxe’s opinion was “not fully persuasive” because it lacked specific ROM measurements and did not document Minnis’s daily work activities consistent with his severe restrictions; it also conflicted with other record evidence (e.g., ambulation ability, normal strength, lack of edema and atrophy, normal muscle tone).
The court also noted there was no error in the ALJ not discussing Dr. Meade’s specialization (ophthalmology), because the regulations do not require an ALJ to explain every factor beyond supportability and consistency (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(b)(2), 416.920c(b)(2)).
Finally, the court rejected the argument that the ALJ had to create a “hierarchy” of persuasiveness. The regulations require articulation of persuasiveness and reasons, not a quantified ranking system.
d) Subjective symptoms and the Eleventh Circuit pain standard
Applying 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 and Eleventh Circuit pain jurisprudence (Wilson; Holt), the court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Minnis’s alleged symptoms were not as limiting as claimed. The ALJ:
- Accepted that medically determinable impairments could cause the alleged symptoms.
- Identified inconsistencies undermining the asserted intensity/persistence, including: multiple treatment notes indicating independent ambulation without assistive devices; upper/lower extremity strength findings at 4+/5 or 5/5; documented symptomatic improvement or stability on Methotrexate, Enbrel, oral steroids; and Minnis’s inability to specify functional restrictions to the consultative examiner.
These discrepancies met the “more than a scintilla” threshold (Lewis v. Callahan) to uphold the ALJ’s symptom evaluation.
3) Impact and Practical Implications
a) Non-retroactivity of SSR 24-2p in judicial review
This decision reinforces a simple but critical rule for Social Security litigants in the Eleventh Circuit: federal courts review SSA final decisions under the rules that were in effect when the ALJ issued them. Claimants cannot invoke SSR 24-2p’s five-year PRW window to overturn pre–June 22, 2024 final decisions on appeal. Two practical consequences follow:
- If an ALJ decision predates June 22, 2024 and becomes the Commissioner’s final decision, courts will apply the 15-year PRW rule in effect at that time.
- SSR 24-2p can matter on remand or in agency proceedings pending on or after June 22, 2024. If a case is remanded on other grounds (not present here), the ALJ would then apply the five-year PRW rule because the application would again be “pending.”
b) Evidence articulation under the post–2017 medical-opinion regime
The panel’s reliance on Raper underscores that ALJs’ persuasiveness findings will be upheld if their discussions of supportability and consistency are clear—even without using those precise terms. Practitioners should ensure that treating source opinions are tightly tied to objective findings and consistent with the broader record; otherwise, ALJs may permissibly find state agency opinions more persuasive, especially if those reviewers had access to updated records.
c) Combined-effects analysis and obesity
The court reaffirmed the need to consider obesity in combination with other impairments but accepted the ALJ’s use of exercise recommendations as data points for functional capacity—not as grounds to penalize a claimant for failure to lose weight. For obesity-related claims, it remains essential to document how obesity exacerbates specific functional limitations (e.g., standing, walking, postural activities), supported by detailed physical examinations and functional testing.
d) Symptom evaluation
The decision demonstrates the persuasive power of longitudinal, objective clinical findings (strength, gait, ROM, response to medication) in evaluating the consistency of alleged limitations. Claimants relying heavily on subjective symptom testimony should bolster the record with objective metrics, medical necessity for assistive devices, and consistent longitudinal documentation across providers.
Complex Concepts Simplified
- Past Relevant Work (PRW): Work a claimant performed long enough to learn it and at a substantial gainful level within a defined period. Before June 22, 2024, the look-back was 15 years; SSR 24-2p changed the look-back to 5 years for new or pending claims as of that date. If a claimant can still do PRW (step four), they are not disabled.
- Residual Functional Capacity (RFC): The most a claimant can do despite limitations. ALJs build RFC from all relevant evidence (medical, opinion, and non-medical) and must consider the combined effect of all impairments.
- Substantial Evidence Review: A deferential standard. Courts ask whether a reasonable person could accept the evidence as adequate to support the ALJ’s findings. Courts do not re-weigh evidence or make new credibility determinations.
- Supportability vs. Consistency (Post–2017): Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c, the two most important factors in assessing the “persuasiveness” of medical opinions are (a) supportability: how well the opinion is explained and backed by objective evidence from that source; and (b) consistency: how well the opinion aligns with the rest of the record. ALJs need not use “magic words” but must make their reasoning clear.
- Obesity in Disability Claims: Obesity is a medically determinable impairment that must be evaluated in combination with others. Failure to lose weight is not, by itself, a valid reason to deny benefits for non-compliance with treatment.
- Eleventh Circuit Pain Standard: A claimant must show a medically determinable impairment that could cause the pain and either objective evidence confirming the severity or evidence that the condition could reasonably give rise to the pain. The ALJ then evaluates how symptoms affect RFC and must explain any inconsistency findings.
Practical Takeaways
- Timing is dispositive for SSR 24-2p: If the ALJ’s decision issued before June 22, 2024, do not expect a federal court to apply SSR 24-2p’s five-year PRW window on review. If your case is still pending at the agency or is remanded after that date, SSR 24-2p should apply on remand.
- Build “supportability” in the record: Treating source opinions should reference specific findings (ROM measurements, strength testing, imaging results, functional assessments). Sparse or conclusory restrictions are vulnerable under §§ 404.1520c/416.920c.
- Demonstrate “consistency” across sources: Align treating opinions with consultative exams, state agency findings, and longitudinal notes. Address inconsistent entries (e.g., documented normal strength or independent ambulation) with explanations.
- Assistive devices and functional limits: If devices are necessary, ensure the medical record documents medical necessity, frequency of use, and impact on function. Provide specific, measurable functional limits (e.g., sitting/standing tolerance, lifting capacity).
- Obesity claims: Link obesity to concrete functional limitations and document how combined impairments reduce capacity. Use objective functional tests when available.
- Symptom testimony: Strengthen subjective complaints with consistent treatment records, medication response history, and specific functional descriptions. Ambiguity or inability to specify restrictions can undercut the claim.
Conclusion
Minnis underscores two central themes in Social Security appeals within the Eleventh Circuit. First, SSR 24-2p’s five-year PRW rule is not retroactive in federal court review of pre–June 22, 2024 final decisions; courts apply the rules in effect when the ALJ decided the case, as confirmed by the SSR’s own footnote and Eleventh Circuit non-retroactivity doctrine. Second, under the post–2017 medical-opinion framework, ALJs satisfy their articulation duties by clearly discussing supportability and consistency—no special incantations required—and their decisions will be upheld where substantial evidence supports the RFC, the handling of combined impairments (including obesity), the evaluation of medical opinions, and the assessment of subjective symptoms.
Although unpublished and non-precedential, the decision offers practical guidance: litigants should tailor arguments to the governing rules at the time of the ALJ’s decision and develop records that allow ALJs—and reviewing courts—to see clearly how objective findings support claimed functional limitations. Where cases remain pending or return on remand after June 22, 2024, SSR 24-2p can meaningfully alter step-four outcomes by narrowing the PRW window, but only in those procedural postures.
Comments