Credibility and Materiality Standards in SSA Disability Appeals:
Maritza Delgado Torres v. Social Security Administration

Introduction

This commentary examines the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Maritza Ivette Delgado Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 20-11604 (11th Cir. Dec. 23, 2024). Delgado Torres, proceeding pro se, challenged an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) denial of her disability insurance benefits and the Appeals Council’s refusal to consider additional evidence. The core issues on appeal were:

• Whether the ALJ properly evaluated Delgado Torres’s subjective complaints of pain under the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) credibility framework;
• Whether the Appeals Council erred by finding that post-decision evidence and lay statements were not material or chronologically relevant to the period at issue.

The parties are: Maritza Ivette Delgado Torres (appellant) and the Commissioner of Social Security (appellee). The case originated in the Middle District of Florida (No. 6:18-cv-02059-DCI) and culminated in this published Eleventh Circuit per curiam opinion.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of benefits. Key findings and holdings include:

1. The ALJ did not err in her credibility assessment. She “gave serious consideration” to Delgado Torres’s allegations of pain but found her daily activities and objective medical records inconsistent with disabling limitations.
2. Pain is a symptom, not a standalone “severe impairment,” and the ALJ’s reasoning for partially discrediting subjective statements complied with Social Security Ruling 16-3p and Eleventh Circuit precedent.
3. The Appeals Council properly deemed new evidence—neighbor and family lay statements, pre-onset treatment records (2001–2003), and a 2013 MRI—non-material or chronologically irrelevant to the November 11, 2006–December 31, 2009 review period.
4. Substantial evidence supported both the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) finding and the conclusion that available jobs existed at step five of the sequential evaluation.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2005): Establishes that pain is a symptom evaluated under the SSA’s two‐part test (objective evidence plus credibility assessment).
• Winschel v. Commissioner, 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011): Defines “substantial evidence” and reiterates that the ALJ must articulate clear, adequate reasons when discounting subjective complaints.
• Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2005): Holds that an ALJ must “explicitly articulate” reasons for discrediting pain testimony, linking those reasons to evidence.
• Hargress v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner, 883 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2018): Explains the Appeals Council’s duty to consider new evidence that is material and chronologically relevant, and the “reasonable probability” standard for materiality.
• Mitchell v. Commissioner, 771 F.3d 780 (11th Cir. 2014): Clarifies that while the Appeals Council must apply correct legal standards, it need not provide a detailed rationale for rejecting each piece of new evidence.
• Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726 (11th Cir. 1983): Recognizes that pain is treated as a symptom rather than an impairment under SSA rules.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in two main parts:

1. Credibility Assessment of Pain:
   • The ALJ properly applied the two‐part framework of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529: (1) medical evidence establishing an impairment capable of producing pain; (2) evaluation of the claimant’s credibility concerning the intensity and persistence of pain based on daily activities, objective findings, and inconsistency in the record.
   • Delgado Torres’s activities—driving short distances, preparing simple meals, running errands, caring for personal hygiene—supported the ALJ’s finding that her complaints were “not entirely consistent” with the record.
   • The ALJ cited consultative examiners (Dr. Perdomo and Dr. Fleischmann) and state‐agency consultants (Dr. Patel) whose findings demonstrated normal gait, range of motion, strength, and mental functioning.
2. Materiality and Chronological Relevance of New Evidence:
   • The Appeals Council must consider evidence that is both chronologically relevant (i.e., predating the final ALJ decision or covering the relevant period) and material (i.e., showing a reasonable probability of changing the outcome).
   • Pre-2006 billing records and neighbor/mother statements duplicated facts already known (fracture history, daily limitations) and thus were not likely to alter the decision.
   • The 2013 MRI fell outside the December 31, 2009 last‐insured date and bore no causation link to the period at issue.
   • No “reasonable probability” existed that the newly proffered evidence would have shifted the RFC finding or step‐five outcome.

Impact

This decision reinforces two critical rules in SSA disability appeals:

• ALJs must continue to provide clear, detailed rationales when evaluating subjective pain testimony, explicitly tying credibility findings to objective and functional evidence.
• Claimants seeking Appeals Council review face a high bar for materiality; additional records or lay statements that merely corroborate known facts or fall outside the adjudication period are unlikely to warrant remand.

Future appeals in the Eleventh Circuit will cite Delgado Torres for both the articulation requirement in credibility determinations and the stringent materiality assessment at the Appeals Council level.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantial Evidence

“More than a scintilla”—evidence that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the ALJ’s conclusion (Winschel).

Two-Part Pain Evaluation

1) Medical signs or laboratory findings showing an impairment that could produce pain.
2) Assessment of the claimant’s statements about pain intensity based on consistency with daily activities and objective tests (20 C.F.R. § 404.1529).

Materiality of New Evidence

Evidence that creates a “reasonable probability” the outcome would differ if it had been before the ALJ (Hargress).

Chronological Relevance

Evidence must relate to the period on or before the ALJ’s hearing decision (Mitchell).

Conclusion

Delgado Torres v. SSA clarifies and reaffirms the standards for evaluating subjective pain complaints and for determining the material impact of post-decision evidence in Social Security disability appeals. The Eleventh Circuit’s thorough endorsement of established precedent ensures that ALJs remain diligent in explaining credibility findings and that the Appeals Council maintains a firm gatekeeping role for newly submitted records. As a result, this decision strengthens predictability and consistency in the adjudication of disability claims.