415 F. App'x 65
10th Cir.2011Background
- Groberg applied for Social Security disability and SSI on September 6, 2005, alleging disability beginning May 22, 2002 due to back pain, knee DJD, asthma, depression, and anxiety.
- The district court affirmed the SSA Commissioner’s denial of benefits after an ALJ held Groberg could perform sedentary work with limited lifting and no mental restrictions.
- The ALJ found Groberg had RFC for sedentary work with specific physical limits and concluded he could perform certain jobs in the national economy.
- Groberg contends the ALJ erred in evaluating his mental impairments, evaluating treating-source opinions, weighing Listing 1.04A criteria, and failing to identify specific jobs at step five.
- The panel reverses and remands for an immediate award of benefits due to inadequate consideration of Groberg’s mental impairments and other errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ properly evaluate Groberg's mental impairments at step two and in RFC? | Groberg’s anxiety, depression, and personality disorder were severe and affected RFC. | Mental impairments were non-severe and not needed to constrain RFC. | No; mental impairments were improperly evaluated and affected RFC |
| Did the ALJ properly weigh treating-source opinions on Groberg's mental health? | The ALJ ignored or misweighed multiple treating and examining providers showing serious impairment. | The ALJ appropriately weighed sources and gave greatest weight to certain opinions. | No; the ALJ’s handling of treating-source opinions was inconsistent and unsupported |
| Did the ALJ properly assess whether Groberg met Listing 1.04A for spine disorders? | Evidence of radiculopathy and neurologic findings suggested Listing 1.04A could be met. | Record lacked the required combination of findings for Listing 1.04A. | No; the ALJ failed to provide proper analysis of the listing evidence |
| Did the ALJ’s step-five analysis and hypothetical to the VE omit impairments that affect job availability? | Mental impairments and potential reading/position limitations were omitted from RFC and VE questions. | Limitations cited as unsupported by the record and not essential to the available jobs. | No; omissions undermine the step-five burden and preclude reliable VE input |
Key Cases Cited
- Andrade v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 985 F.2d 1045 (10th Cir. 1993) (standard of review for SSA disability findings)
- Carpenter v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2008) (harmless error at step two when other impairments are severe)
- Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 1996) (ALJ must discuss evidence relevant to listing conclusions)
- Pisciotta v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 1074 (10th Cir. 2007) (GAF scores and functional interpretation in disability cases)
- Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2010) (interpretation of GAF ranges and impairment)
- Ragland v. Shalala, 992 F.2d 1056 (10th Cir. 1993) (remand versus immediate benefits in SSA appeals)
- Salazar v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 615 (10th Cir. 2006) (remand factors and evidence considerations for benefits eligibility)
- Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748 (10th Cir. 1988) (five-step sequential evaluation framework for disability)