Anderson v. Social Security Administration, 4:12-cv-00366

Michael J. Anderson (then 34) applied for Social Security Title II disability benefits alleging panic attacks, social anxiety, and depression with an onset date of January 1, 1997.
Claims were denied initially and on reconsideration; ALJ hearing held December 16, 2010; ALJ denied benefits in an April 22, 2011 decision finding Anderson able to perform past relevant work as a kitchen helper and janitor.
ALJ found a severe impairment of anxiety disorder, moderate limitations in social functioning and concentration/pace, and assessed an RFC for simple tasks in a habituated setting with superficial coworker contact and no public contact.
ALJ concluded at step four Anderson could return to his past relevant work (both unskilled medium jobs), and the Appeals Council denied review.
On judicial review, the court found an internal inconsistency: the ALJ earlier found Anderson had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since 1997 but later held he could perform past relevant work performed after 1997.
The Commissioner argued the error was harmless because the vocational expert (VE) testified to alternate jobs; the court declined to apply harmless-error to supply the missing step-five analysis and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly found past relevant work	Anderson: ALJ failed to show past work was "substantial gainful activity" and thus cannot be past relevant work	Colvin: Error harmless because VE testified to alternate jobs authorizing denial anyway	Court: ALJ erred; finding of past relevant work inconsistent with earlier finding of no SGA; remand required because ALJ did not perform/record a step-five analysis
Whether VE hypothetical matched RFC	Anderson: VE testimony at hearing did not reflect RFC adopted in decision	Colvin: VE testified to many jobs; that testimony supports denial	Court: Not reached on merits because remand required for past-work/step-five error
Weight given to medical-source opinions	Anderson: ALJ improperly evaluated opinions (social worker, consultative psychologist, agency physician)	Colvin: ALJ reasonably weighed evidence	Court: Not addressed due to remand; left for ALJ on remand
Credibility assessment of claimant	Anderson: ALJ failed to properly assess credibility	Colvin: ALJ’s credibility finding supported by record	Court: Not addressed; remand required so ALJ should revisit credibility if needed

Grogan v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2005) (standard for substantial evidence review)
Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2005) (court may not reweigh evidence)
White v. Barnhart, 287 F.3d 903 (10th Cir. 2002) (Commissioner’s decision stands if supported by substantial evidence)
Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir. 1996) (requirements for evaluating past relevant work)
Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2004) (harmless-error doctrine in Social Security cases)
Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729 (10th Cir. 2005) (caution in applying harmless-error analysis)
Carpenter v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2008) (harmless error where ALJ erred at step two but proceeded further)
Mays v. Colvin, 739 F.3d 569 (10th Cir. 2014) (postural limitation error proved inconsequential where RFC limited to sedentary work)