898 F. Supp. 2d 1220
D. Colo.2012Background
- Gorringe applied for disability benefits and SSI on Sept. 10, 2008, alleging disability since Apr. 30, 2006.
- ALJ denied benefits on Feb. 26, 2010 after a Jan. 28, 2010 hearing.
- Impairments identified: cognitive disorder NOS due to remote aneurysm/craniotomy, major depression, and PTSD.
- RFC limited to semiskilled work with ability to understand/remember simple to semi-skilled tasks and to cope with routine changes.
- ALJ found claimant could perform past relevant work as a receptionist; denied disability; Appeals Council denied review; now before court for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the ALJ's weighing of medical opinions proper? | Gorringe argues the ALJ gave greatest weight to a non-treating state agency opinion without adequate explanation and ignored other substantial limitations. | Astrue contends the ALJ appropriately weighed opinions and relied on substantial evidence. | Remanded for clearer handling of opinions and more thorough explanation. |
| Did the ALJ's step-four assessment align with the record and RFC? | Gorringe contends the RFC and its relation to past work as receptionist are not supported by substantial evidence given the omissions in opinion. | Defendant asserts RFC supported by record and VE testimony. | Remand required to reassess step four in light of missing explanations. |
| Did the ALJ properly evaluate the state agency and Dr. Green assessments under POMS and SSA rules? | Gorringe asserts the ALJ misapplied POMS and failed to reflect moderate limitations found by the state agency examiner and Dr. Green. | Astrue argues POMS interpretation and weight assignment were proper. | Remanded to readdress these determinations with proper rationale. |
| Are the conclusions about past work as receptionist consistent with the VE’s testimony and the record? | Gorringe contends the ALJ’s claim that the receptionist job reflects the job as performed generally is unsupported. | Astrue relies on VE testimony supporting the position. | Remand to resolve inconsistencies between ALJ’s readings and VE testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Angel v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2003) (standard for substantial evidence review in SSA disability cases)
- Ellison v. Sullivan, 929 F.2d 556 (10th Cir. 1990) (framework for evaluating substantial evidence and ALJ reasoning)
- Flaherty v. Astrue, 515 F.3d 1067 (10th Cir. 2007) (definition of substantial evidence; can't rely on mere conclusions)
- Musgrave v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1371 (10th Cir. 1992) (requires thorough consideration of all record evidence)
- Thompson v. Sullivan, 987 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir. 1993) (legal duty to apply correct legal standards in disability determinations)
- Casias v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799 (10th Cir. 1991) (five-step evaluation framework validity)
- Trimiar v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1326 (10th Cir. 1992) (articulation of findings at each step of evaluation)
- Haga v. Astrue, 482 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2007) (necessity of explaining how partial restrictions relate to overall RFC)