Bills v. Commissioner, SSA
18-1109
| 10th Cir. | Oct 1, 2018Background
- Ms. Ruby Jean Bills applied for SSDI and SSI, alleging disabling asthma/COPD, anxiety, hip problems, ADHD, obesity, scoliosis, and GERD; ALJ denied benefits at step four, finding she could perform past work as a cashier II.
- The Appeals Council affirmed; district court remanded because the ALJ failed to explain weight given to consultative examiner Dr. Mitchell’s opinion (standing/walking limited to 4 hours).
- On remand, ALJ found several severe impairments but an RFC for light work (≈6 hours standing/walking per 8-hour day) with other non-dispositive limitations, and denied benefits at step four.
- ALJ gave limited/partial weight to Dr. Mitchell (consultative) and Dr. Burrows (treating, five visits) and great weight to nonexamining state consultant Dr. Panek, who opined capacities consistent with light work.
- Bills argued the ALJ improperly discounted examining and treating opinions and erred in adopting the nonexamining consultant’s RFC; the Tenth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and correct legal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports RFC finding for light work | Bills: ALJ inadequately rejected Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Burrows, who limited standing/walking to sedentary levels | ALJ: properly discounted those opinions for inconsistency with record, limited treatment history, and lack of objective support; Dr. Panek’s opinion fits the record | RFC for light work is supported by substantial evidence; judgment affirmed |
| Whether ALJ erred in weighing consultative examiner (Dr. Mitchell) | Mitchell’s exam supports 4-hr standing/walking; ALJ mischaracterized or overstated reasons to reject it | ALJ cited internal inconsistencies in Mitchell’s exam findings, subsequent records showing normal gait/activity, and single consultative visit | ALJ erred in relying on one sitting-observation reason but overall provided sufficient, legitimate reasons to reject Mitchell’s 4-hr limit |
| Whether ALJ erred in weighing treating physician (Dr. Burrows) | Burrows had five visits (longitudinal relationship) so his limitations deserved controlling/greater weight | ALJ found Burrows’s restrictive opinions inconsistent with his own treatment notes, lack of objective support, and record discrepancies | ALJ gave specific, legitimate reasons to partially reject Burrows’s lifting and sit/stand limits; substantial evidence supports that decision |
| Whether ALJ permissibly relied on nonexamining consultant (Dr. Panek) | Bills: nonexamining opinion should not outweigh examining/treating opinions | Agency: nonexamining opinions can be entitled to greater weight when consistent with the record | Court: ALJ permissibly relied on Panek; opinion consistent with record and supported RFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. Apfel, 231 F.3d 687 (10th Cir. 2000) (defines substantial-evidence review and deference to agency factfinding)
- Howard v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 945 (10th Cir. 2004) (describes deferential appellate standard for SSA findings)
- Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2003) (lists factors ALJ must consider when weighing medical opinions)
- Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must give "good reasons" for weight assigned to treating-source opinions)