Skip to content
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Home / Decisions / United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit / Woodhouse v. Commissioner of Social Security
11th Cir.

Woodhouse v. Commissioner of Social Security

June 23, 2026 ·8:24-cv-00995-CPT ·Per Curiam · By Raj Patel

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court decision upholding the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits. The court held that the administrative law judge properly considered the claimant's migraines when determining his residual functional capacity.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:24
Download

Key takeaways

  • Holding: The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision upholding the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits because the administrative law judge's determination was supported by substantial evidence.
  • Standard: Substantial evidence standard
  • Vote: Per Curiam decision affirming the lower court.
  • Practical effect: This decision reinforces that administrative law judges must explicitly address severe impairments in their residual functional capacity findings, but courts will not reverse if the record shows the impairment was considered and the conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.

Background

Laharold Woodhouse applied for Disability Insurance Benefits in January two thousand twenty-three due to ailments affecting his neck, back, shoulders, knees, ankles, and feet, including severe migraines. The Social Security Administration denied his application after he exhausted administrative appeals, including a hearing before an administrative law judge who concluded he was not disabled under the Social Security Act. The district court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, and Woodhouse appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied the substantial evidence standard to review the Commissioner’s decision. While the court agreed that the administrative law judge must discuss the limiting effects of severe impairments like migraines, it found the judge had done so by mentioning the condition over twenty times. The court noted that medical evidence, including the lack of medication refills and the claimant’s ability to perform daily activities, contradicted his claims of severe limitations. The court concluded the judge’s residual functional capacity assessment was supported by substantial evidence and that the claimant could not substitute his judgment for that of the agency.

The ALJ mentioned Woodhouse’s migraine headaches over twenty times throughout her thorough and well-reasoned decision.

Woodhouse v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 25-13593, slip op. at 5 (11th Cir. June 23, 2026)

What it means going forward

This decision reinforces that administrative law judges must explicitly address severe impairments in their residual functional capacity findings, but courts will not reverse if the record shows the impairment was considered and the conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.

Civil Social Security

On this page

Background The court’s reasoning What it means going forward

Share

Related from this court

Jul 16, 2026 Savannah Shoals, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Jul 16, 2026 Middlebrooks v. Bond, James Bond, Inc. Jul 15, 2026 Ali Cem Erenler v. TJM Properties, Inc. Jul 15, 2026 Arenales-Salgado-de-Oliveira v. Director, USCIS
Do It For The Caselaw

Just Do It For the Caselaw!

Site

  • Mission
  • The Anchors
  • Editorial Process
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Contact

Read & Listen

  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • The Weekly Brief

Follow

© 2026 Do It For The Caselaw. Not legal advice.