1:16-cv-01354
D.N.M.Feb 26, 2018Background
- Claimant Alfonso M. Gonzales, Jr. applied for Title XVI SSI on Sept. 1, 2012, alleging disabling physical and mental conditions (PTSD, anxiety, back/neck/knee pain, headaches, asthma); application denied initially and on reconsideration; ALJ hearing held June 2, 2015.
- ALJ found severe impairments: obesity, anxiety disorder, asthma, PTSD, and pain disorder, but not disabling and not meeting a Listing.
- ALJ assessed an RFC for less than the full range of light work: lift 20/10 lbs occasionally/frequently, stand/walk ~6 hours, sit ~6 hours; avoid concentrated fumes/dust; mental limits to simple, routine tasks with little-to-no changes and superficial coworker contact.
- State consultative examiner (Dr. Simpson) diagnosed chronic PTSD (GAF 53) with mild–moderate limitations; state non‑examining reviewer (Dr. Atkins) found ability to do simple work in low‑social‑contact settings if changes are gradual.
- Gonzales argued the ALJ: (1) failed properly to weigh or adopt state psychological opinions (especially limits re: supervisors/public and gradual changes); and (2) failed to properly consider obesity under SSR 02‑1p.
- Magistrate Judge Khalsa denied remand, holding the ALJ’s evaluation of the psychological opinions and her consideration of obesity were supported by substantial evidence and any articulation gaps were harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given state psychological opinions / RFC consistency | ALJ failed to adopt or explain divergence from Dr. Atkins/Dr. Simpson (particularly limits re: supervisors/public and ability to accept gradual changes) | ALJ accounted for and incorporated the consultants’ limitations; any non‑verbatim wording captures the opinions’ essence | Court: ALJ gave significant/some weight to the consultants; RFC is consistent with their opinions; any omitted explanation was harmless because no inconsistency with RFC and jobs identified require low social contact |
| Failure to articulate use of regulatory factors for medical opinions | ALJ did not explicitly apply/allude to each regulatory factor or state weight for one consultant | ALJ discussed consistency/support and cited medical record; RFC reflects opinions | Court: ALJ adequately weighed Dr. Simpson and accorded some weight to Dr. Atkins; failure to recite every factor or explain weight to Dr. Atkins was harmless given consistency with RFC |
| Limitation for changes in work setting (gradual vs little/no changes) | Dr. Atkins said changes ok if introduced gradually; ALJ limited to "little to no" changes—more restrictive without explanation | ALJ’s phrasing captures the same practical restriction; claimant failed to show prejudice | Court: "little to no changes" sufficiently captures the essence of a limitation restricting changes; no meaningful conflict established |
| Consideration of obesity under SSR 02‑1p (step 3 and step 4) | ALJ failed to discuss obesity at step 3 and relied on assumptions at step 4 instead of evidence | ALJ found obesity severe, stated SSR 02‑1p standard, discussed record and incorporated limitations in RFC; no evidence obesity caused greater limits | Court: Omission at step 3 harmless because step‑4 RFC contradicts any Listing‑level impairment; ALJ properly considered obesity at step 4 and plaintiff identified no evidence showing obesity imposed additional limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Fischer‑Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729 (10th Cir.) (step‑three articulation can be harmless when later RFC findings foreclose Listings)
- Hamlin v. Barnhart, 365 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir.) (ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion; weight varies by source)
- Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir.) (ALJ need not articulate every regulatory factor)
- Howard v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 945 (10th Cir.) (omission of explicit weight for a consultative opinion may be harmless if RFC is consistent)
- Keyes‑Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir.) (requirement to provide appropriate explanations for accepting or rejecting medical opinions)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court) (burden allocation in five‑step Social Security analysis)
- Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir.) (harmless‑error analysis where no reasonable factfinder would reach a different conclusion)