Gonzales v. Social Security Administration
1:16-cv-01225
D.N.M.Nov 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Bernardo Leon Gonzales applied for SSI and DIB alleging disability from January 1, 2009; applications denied and ALJ Weiss found him not disabled after a May 28, 2015 hearing. Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found multiple severe impairments (including back conditions, PTSD, depressive disorder, personality disorder, substance abuse in remission) and assessed an RFC for a restricted range of light work with mental limits (simple instructions; concentration for two hours at a time; frequent interaction allowed).
- ALJ assigned varying weight to medical opinions: gave partial weight to consultative psychologist Dr. Owen, great weight to state-agency physicians Drs. Blacharsh and Bridges (but said RFC warranted "greater limitations"), and gave reasons for other consultative opinions.
- Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s handling of medical opinions (Dr. Owen; state agency Drs. Blacharsh and Bridges) and the step‑five vocational finding; the district court reviewed whether the ALJ applied correct legal standards and whether substantial evidence supported the RFC and weight given to opinions.
- The court concluded the ALJ erred in (1) failing to explain rejection of Dr. Owen’s moderate limitation for dealing with stress and (2) relying on Drs. Blacharsh and Bridges when their narrative (Section III) did not reflect all moderate limitations they checked in Section I (notably: interruptions to a normal workday/week and inability to maintain a consistent pace).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly discounted Dr. Owen’s opinions | Gonzales: ALJ failed to explain rejection of Dr. Owen’s moderate limitation in dealing with stress and omitted it from RFC | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably discounted parts of Dr. Owen’s opinion (inconsistent with other evidence) and accounted for mental limits in RFC | Court: ALJ properly discounted Dr. Owen’s marked-interaction finding but erred by not explaining or incorporating the moderate stress limitation into the RFC |
| Whether ALJ properly relied on state-agency MRFCs (Drs. Blacharsh & Bridges) | Gonzales: ALJ failed to account for moderate limitations in Section I that were not explained in Section III (attention/pace, interruptions to workday/week) | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly relied on Section III narratives; limiting to unskilled work accounted for mental limits | Court: ALJ erred — Section III narratives omitted some Section I moderate limitations; ALJ could not rely on those MRFCA conclusions without explanation |
| Whether limiting claimant to unskilled work adequately addresses moderate mental limitations | Gonzales: Unskilled restriction does not capture limits like inability to maintain consistent pace or complete a workweek without interruptions | Commissioner: Unskilled work limitation can account for moderate mental limits and ALJ need not incorporate all step‑three findings into RFC | Court: Limiting to unskilled work is insufficient here because the omitted limitations specifically concern pace and ability to complete a normal workday/week and are treated as critical for unskilled work |
| Whether ALJ’s step‑five finding must be remanded | Gonzales: Step five not supported if RFC incomplete | Commissioner: Step five supported by VE given ALJ's RFC | Court: Remand required on opinion-weighting/RFC issues; court did not reach step five claim because it may be mooted on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Maes v. Astrue, 522 F.3d 1093 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard of substantial evidence review in Social Security appeals)
- Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2004) (court must not reweigh evidence; ALJ decision upheld only if supported by substantial evidence)
- Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2003) (ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion and explain weight given using specific factors)
- Haga v. Astrue, 482 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2007) (ALJ may not pick and choose parts of an uncontradicted medical opinion without explanation)
- Carpenter v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2008) (Commissioner may not supply post hoc rationalizations; review limited to reasons stated by ALJ)
- Vigil v. Colvin, 805 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2015) (discussion of when limiting to unskilled work can account for concentration/pace limitations)
- Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2012) (limitation to unskilled work relates to skill transfer, not necessarily to impairment of mental functions)