Clark v. Colvin, 2:14-cv-00030

Plaintiff (Jason Clark) applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (Title II) on May 21, 2012, alleging onset October 1, 2010; application denied initially and on reconsideration; ALJ hearing July 8, 2013.
ALJ found severe impairments: PTSD and depressive disorder, but not meeting a Listing.
ALJ assessed an RFC for the full range of unskilled work at any exertional level with nonexertional limitations tailored to Clark, concluded Clark could not do past work but could perform other jobs (e.g., cleaner).
ALJ gave less weight to treating provider Dr. Brewczynski’s opinion as inconsistent with other medical evidence (notably Dr. Schreiner’s report).
ALJ found Clark’s subjective symptom testimony not fully credible, using boilerplate language without clearly linking specific evidence to the credibility finding.
Magistrate Judge recommended remand solely because the ALJ’s credibility analysis failed to give specific, evidence-linked reasons as required by SSR 96-7p and Tenth Circuit precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly discounted treating provider opinion	ALJ improperly afforded Dr. Brewczynski lesser weight without sufficient justification	ALJ gave specific, legitimate reasons: inconsistency with other substantial evidence (e.g., Dr. Schreiner)	ALJ did not err; substantial evidence supported lesser weight for the treating opinion
Whether ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff's credibility	ALJ rejected Clark’s subjective complaints without valid, specific reasons or record linkage	ALJ cited medical evidence generally and substantial evidence supports credibility finding; court should not reweigh evidence	ALJ erred: credibility finding lacks the required specific, evidence-linked reasons; remand required
Whether ALJ’s step-five VE hypothetical was adequate	ALJ gave incomplete hypothetical by omitting limitations supported by record (and Brewczynski)	VE need only consider limitations ALJ finds credible; reweighing evidence is improper	Step-five analysis supported by substantial evidence given current findings; but may need revision if credibility reassessed on remand
Remedy	Remand for award of benefits?	Defendant opposes benefits; supports affirmance or remand for further proceedings	Remand to Commissioner for reevaluation of credibility in compliance with SSR 96-7p (not an immediate award of benefits)

Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212 (definition of disability and durational requirement)
Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007) (court cannot reweigh evidence; substantial-evidence standard)
Ellison v. Sullivan, 929 F.2d 534 (10th Cir. 1990) (affirm agency decision when evidence supports either outcome)
Raymond v. Astrue, 621 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2009) (treating-source opinions may be discounted for specific, legitimate reasons)
Hardman v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 676 (10th Cir. 2004) (requires specific, evidence-linked credibility findings; condemns boilerplate)
Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368 (10th Cir. 2000) (VE hypothetical need not include limitations ALJ rejects as not credible)