Barrus v. Berryhill, 1:16-cv-00056

Plaintiff Vaughn Barrus applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging migraines, affective disorder, anxiety, and sleep apnea with an onset date of September 7, 2012; SSA denied benefits and an ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on February 19, 2016.
ALJ found severe impairments: migraines and sleep apnea; found anxiety and depression medically determinable but non-severe; RFC limited only for occasional balance/climbing and no exposure to machinery/heights; concluded Barrus could perform jobs in the national economy and was not disabled.
Barrus submitted additional psychologist (Dr. Brown) records to the Appeals Council; the Council considered them but denied review; those records were added to the administrative record for judicial review.
Magistrate Judge Furse reviewed the record and recommended remand, identifying legal errors in the ALJ’s analysis of non-severe mental impairments, RFC formulation, step-three (Listing 11.03) equivalency analysis, and evaluation of certain medical opinions.
Key factual concerns: ALJ omitted any function-based analysis of how anxiety/depression affect RFC; ALJ relied on absence of objective migraine tests; ALJ failed to weigh opinions from treating/consulting providers (Drs. Langford, Judy) and did not meaningfully analyze equivalence to Listing 11.03 given migraines plus mental impairments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Step Two severity of depression/anxiety	Barrus: ALJ erred by not finding anxiety/depression severe, especially given Dr. Brown records	Commissioner: ALJ permissibly found non-severe and proceeded with evaluation	Harmless-error as to designation alone, but ALJ erred by failing to account for these impairments in RFC — remand required
RFC formulation / consideration of non-severe impairments	Barrus: ALJ failed to include functional limitations from anxiety/depression in RFC	Commissioner: ALJ discussed mental symptoms and reasonably discounted them	ALJ committed legal error by not performing a function-based RFC analysis for mental impairments; remand required
Step Three — Listing 11.03 equivalency (migraines)	Barrus: ALJ failed to analyze whether migraines (with comorbidities) medically equal Listing 11.03	Commissioner: ALJ considered Listing and record does not support equivalency	ALJ’s step-three analysis was legally inadequate; failure not shown harmless given added records — remand recommended
Evaluation of medical opinions / treating sources	Barrus: ALJ improperly discounted treating opinions and ignored Drs. Langford and Judy	Commissioner: ALJ gave specific reasons to discount treating source and properly credited agency consultants	Some weight assignments justified, but ALJ failed to weigh Dr. Langford and Dr. Judy opinions — error requiring remand; overall findings may change with new evidence

Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir.) (standard for substantial-evidence review in social-security cases)
Wells v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 1061 (10th Cir.) (RFC must include a narrative linking evidence to conclusions; step-two discussion cannot substitute for RFC analysis)
Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729 (10th Cir.) (step-three errors may be harmless if other findings support the conclusion)
Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387 (10th Cir.) (factors ALJ should consider when evaluating pain/credibility)
Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir.) (treating-physician rule and factors for weighing medical opinions)
Robinson v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir.) (review is limited to the reasons stated in the ALJ’s decision)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S.) (ALJ’s duty to resolve conflicting medical evidence)