5:20-cv-00656
W.D. Okla.Apr 27, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Monica Bishop applied for SSDI on December 27, 2016, alleging osteoarthritis, depression, and PTSD.
- ALJ found severe impairments of osteoarthritis, depression, and PTSD and assessed an RFC for light work with no bilateral overhead reaching and only superficial interaction with the public.
- State agency psychologists (Drs. Lindsay and Drake) opined Bishop could do simple and some complex tasks, would do better working mostly alone, and would not interact well with the public.
- ALJ found those opinions persuasive, assigned moderate limitation for interacting with others, and relied on a vocational expert (VE) who testified Bishop could perform her past unskilled jobs (fast-food worker; maid/housekeeper) as generally performed.
- Appeals Council denied review; Bishop challenged the RFC and VE hypotheticals as omitting limitations from the state consultants and her testimony about interpersonal problems.
- The district court affirmed, holding the ALJ’s RFC, VE testimony, and explanation were supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly omitted limitations from state agency psychologists in the RFC and VE hypotheticals | Bishop: ALJ failed to include limits to "simple and some complex tasks" and restrictions on interactions with coworkers/supervisors/public and gave no explanation for omission | Commissioner: ALJ found the consultants persuasive, incorporated interaction limits as "superficial," relied on medical record and VE; the jobs identified are unskilled with minimal people contact | Court: Affirmed. ALJ’s RFC and VE hypotheticals accounted for interaction limits; substantial evidence supports RFC and omission claim rejected |
| Whether identified DOT/DICOT job descriptions are inconsistent with the ALJ’s interaction limitation | Bishop: Fast-food and housekeeping jobs involve significant interaction and personal assistance, conflicting with RFC | Commissioner: DICOT shows low "People" levels for these unskilled jobs; brief/limited social contact and personal assistance in context do not exceed "superficial" limitation | Court: Affirmed. DICOT descriptions and VE testimony support that the jobs comport with the superficial-interaction RFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007) (discusses the 12‑month duration requirement and substantial-evidence standard)
- Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212 (2002) (interprets the disability-duration requirement)
- Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009) (explains five-step sequential evaluation and substantial-evidence review)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (defines "substantial evidence" standard)
- Newbold v. Colvin, 718 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2013) (court will not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the agency)
- Turner v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 326 (10th Cir. 1985) (plaintiff bears initial burden to establish disability)
- Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 2011) (Appeals Council denial makes ALJ decision final for judicial review)
- Allman v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 1326 (10th Cir. 2016) (scope of district court review of Commissioner)
- Cowan v. Astrue, 552 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2008) (role of claimant’s counsel in developing and presenting the record)