Chrismon v. Astrue, 531 F. App'x 893

Background

Plaintiff Robert Chrismon II sought SSDI and SSI for physical (cervical spine post-surgery) and mental impairments (depression, schizoaffective disorder, substance abuse), alleging onset Sept. 30, 2008.
ALJ found severe impairments but not disabling, assigned an RFC for a limited range of light work (no stooping; limited to simple and some complex tasks), and denied benefits at step five based on VE testimony identifying several unskilled jobs.
ALJ declined to give controlling or substantial weight to a treating mental-health opinion (noting marked/moderate limitations) because of an asserted lack of longitudinal mental-health records.
After the ALJ decision, Chrismon submitted the previously unavailable longitudinal treatment notes to the Appeals Council, which accepted the records but denied review without discussing their effect on the ALJ’s treatment of the treating opinion.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the ALJ’s decision was legally correct and supported by substantial evidence and found reversible error in the ALJ’s treatment of the treating medical opinion; remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Step-three listings (mental) — whether episodes of decompensation met listings	Chrismon: ALJ misapplied definition of "repeated episodes of decompensation" and thus erred in rejecting listings §12.03/§12.04	Commissioner: ALJ correctly found B and C criteria not met (and claimant did not show required chronic 2‑year history for C criteria)	Held: No reversible error on listings — claimant failed to show threshold elements for B or C criteria and did not develop argument for 2‑year chronicity requirement
VE hypothetical and job identification	Chrismon: ALJ’s hypothetical omitted or misstated limitations (e.g., ALJ didn’t state RFC limits, omitted cognitive test results), so VE testimony unreliable	Commissioner: VE heard and relied on exhibits; any omission was harmless because identified jobs fit RFC (simple, unskilled work)	Held: No reversible error — any omission was harmless because at least two identified jobs matched the RFC and existed in significant numbers
Treatment of treating-source medical opinion	Chrismon: ALJ improperly discounted treating psychiatrist/counselor MRFCA without applying controlling‑weight two‑step analysis and ignored later-submitted longitudinal records	Commissioner: ALJ permissibly discounted opinion due to lack of supporting longitudinal records; Appeals Council considered new records and denial of review need not explain rejection	Held: Reversible error — ALJ failed to perform required two‑step treating‑source analysis and his stated reason (lack of longitudinal records) was undermined once the Appeals Council admitted those records; remand required
Credibility determination	Chrismon: ALJ’s credibility finding was defective because it relied on the improperly discounted treating opinion	Commissioner: Credibility finding was supported by record as weighed by ALJ	Held: Court declined to decide on credibility because credibility depends on re-evaluation of treating opinion on remand

Key Cases Cited

Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir.) (two‑step analysis for treating‑physician opinions; controlling weight framework)
Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir.) (summary of five‑step sequential evaluation)
Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir.) (harmless‑error standard regarding jobs identified by a VE)
Martinez v. Barnhart, 444 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir.) (Appeals Council’s consideration of new evidence makes it part of the administrative record for judicial review)
O'Dell v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 855 (10th Cir.) (administrative‑record principles when Appeals Council considers new evidence)
Barnett v. Apfel, 231 F.3d 687 (10th Cir.) (hypothetical to VE must include all limitations the ALJ finds)
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (U.S.) (court may not supply post hoc rationales for agency decisions)