Farley v. Social Security Administration
1:20-cv-00019
D.N.M.Jan 6, 2021Background
- Plaintiff applied for Social Security Disability Insurance on October 24, 2014, alleging disability from December 6, 2012.
- Claims were denied initially and on reconsideration; an ALJ issued a non‑disability decision on November 30, 2018; Appeals Council denied review.
- Magistrate Judge issued a Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (PFRD) recommending denial of remand and affirming the Commissioner; Plaintiff objected to the PFRD.
- Plaintiff’s sole substantive objection argued the ALJ erred by not incorporating a standing/walking limitation in the RFC based on ambiguous findings from consultative examiner Dr. Greer (narrative: "frequent" standing/walking; checkbox: 3 hours standing and 3 hours walking).
- The district court reviewed the record de novo, concluded any ambiguity was harmless because the ALJ gave Dr. Greer only "some" weight (a determination Plaintiff did not challenge), overruled the objection, adopted the PFRD, and affirmed the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ erred by not adopting a standing/walking limitation beyond light work | Dr. Greer’s forms are ambiguous; checkbox entries could mean non‑cumulative 3 hours each and thus preclude 6 cumulative hours required for light work | ALJ permissibly assigned only "some" weight to Dr. Greer; even if ambiguous, any internal contradiction would justify reduced weight and is harmless | Court held no reversible error: objection overruled; ALJ’s weighing and RFC are upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 1996) (objections to magistrate must be timely and specific to preserve review)
- Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421 (10th Cir. 1996) (issues raised first in objections are waived)
- Bratcher v. Bray‑Doyle Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 42, 8 F.3d 722 (10th Cir. 1993) (express reference to de novo review indicates district court considered the record)
- United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980) (district court may rely on magistrate’s proposed findings in its discretion)
- Garcia v. City of Albuquerque, 232 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2000) (brief orders stating de novo review may be sufficient)
- Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2004) (harmless‑error doctrine applicable in social security cases)