600 F. App'x 616
10th Cir.2015Background
- Jimmy Dale Carver applied for SSI alleging back pain and depression; claims denied at initial, reconsideration, and ALJ levels; Appeals Council denied review and district court affirmed.
- ALJ found severe impairments: back pain; mood disorder NOS; history of substance abuse in remission; personality disorder with antisocial features; reduced left-eye acuity.
- At step three the ALJ found no Listing-level impairments and assessed only mild limitations in activities of daily living and moderate limitations in social functioning and concentration/persistence/pace.
- ALJ assessed an RFC limiting Carver to light/sedentary work, simple instructions, routine supervision, occasional public contact, and ability to remain attentive and responsive.
- The VE testified that jobs exist in the national economy consistent with that RFC; ALJ relied on state consultants Dr. Janice Smith (nonexamining) and Dr. Derrise Garner (examining) and gave both great weight.
- Carver appealed, arguing the ALJ failed to account for (1) a moderate limitation in accepting instructions/responding to supervisor criticism and (2) step-three moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ failed to account for Dr. Smith’s check-box moderate limitation for accepting instructions/responding to criticism | Carver: ALJ’s RFC/hypothetical didn’t capture the Section I moderate limitation; Haga requires explanation when consultant’s moderate limits are rejected | Agency: Section III narrative controls; Dr. Smith’s Section III restricts to simple tasks, routine supervision, and superficial relations with supervisors, which embody the Section I moderate limitation | Court: No error — Section III narrative and ALJ’s RFC sufficiently capture the limitation (ALJ reasonably paraphrased “superficial” interaction as routine supervision on simple tasks) |
| Whether ALJ failed to translate his step-three paragraph B moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, or pace into RFC/hypothetical | Carver: Step-three moderate finding required more restrictive RFC (e.g., pace/attention limits) than the ALJ adopted | Agency: SSR 96-8p requires translating paragraph B into detailed functional limits; ALJ relied on Dr. Garner’s exam and Dr. Smith’s PRTF/MRFCA Section III limiting to simple tasks, addressing the moderate limitation | Court: No error — ALJ incorporated the limitation by limiting work to simple instructions; medical opinions support the RFC and hypothetical |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. Apfel, 231 F.3d 687 (10th Cir. 2000) (standard: substantial evidence review; court will not reweigh evidence)
- Haga v. Astrue, 482 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2007) (ALJ error when rejecting without explanation a consultant’s moderate mental limitations)
- McNamar v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 764 (10th Cir. 1999) (POMS are agency policies to which courts defer unless arbitrary or contrary to law)
- Ramey v. Reinertson, 268 F.3d 955 (10th Cir. 2001) (court defers to POMS absent arbitrariness)