Alvey v. Astrue
536 F. App'x 792
10th Cir.2013Background
- Alvey seeks disability benefits and SSI; ALJ denied at step four after finding mental impairments non-severe at step two.
- ALJ identified severe physical impairments: left ankle fracture with residuals and cervical spondylosis; mental impairments noted but deemed non-severe.
- PRT form indicated mild limitations in daily living, social functioning, and concentration/persistence; no decompensation episodes.
- At step four, ALJ gave RFC for full sedentary work with no mental limitations and found PRW could be performed as actually done.
- HELD framework under Winfrey applied; court reviews for substantial evidence and proper legal standards; Wells discussion informs mental impairment analysis at steps two and four.
- Court ultimately found any step-four mental impairment error harmless given lack of substantial evidence of mental limitations and VE testimony supporting PRW as performed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly analyzed mental impairments at step four under Winfrey. | Alvey argues ALJ failed to include mental limitations in RFC and to analyze mental demands of PRW. | Commissioner contends no reversible error given no substantial mental limitations and VE support. | Harmless error; no substantial mental limitations supported in record. |
| Whether failure to assess mental RFC requires remand. | Alvey asserts remand is required to correct step-four analysis. | Commissioner argues remand unnecessary due to harmless error and lack of adverse impact on outcome. | Remand not required; RFC lacking mental restrictions still supports PRW. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir. 1996) (three-part framework for evaluating PRW; proper RFC/PRW analysis required)
- Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2012) (substantial evidence and proper legal standards; need for adequate findings at steps)
- Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2004) (harmless-error analysis possible where correct analysis would not change outcome)
- Wyoming v. Livingston, 443 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2006) (facilitates sua sponte harmless-error analysis when appropriate)