714 F. App'x 861
10th Cir.2017Background
- Dona Harrold applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI alleging severe migraines, bipolar and anxiety disorders, back problems, and fibromyalgia; ALJ denied benefits at step five of the sequential evaluation and the Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found severe mental impairments: bipolar I disorder with psychotic features and panic disorder with agoraphobia; RFC limited claimant to simple tasks, superficial interaction with others, appropriate adaptation, and no work with the general public.
- Three acceptable medical-source opinions (Dr. LaGrand, and state agency psychologists Drs. Cummings and Constantin) and one treatment-source opinion (counselor Robert Blasdel) addressed mental RFC; GAF scores around 45–48 appear in the record.
- ALJ incorporated some limitations from the medical opinions into the RFC but failed to evaluate or explain the weight given to substantial portions of those opinions (e.g., LaGrand’s statement that claimant was unlikely to work without significant psychological interference; psychologists’ qualification that functioning was limited to a “structured setting”; Blasdel’s time-based severe limitations).
- ALJ discounted Blasdel’s opinions for procedural/format reasons, because a physician co-signed the form, and because they allegedly were unsupported by GLMH treatment notes — but the ALJ did not explain or cite record examples supporting those conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated and weighed medical-source opinions | ALJ failed to evaluate/assign weight to Dr. LaGrand, state agency psychologists, and improperly discounted Blasdel without specific legitimate reasons | Commissioner contends any error was harmless and ALJ permissibly relied on RFC and other evidence | Reversed: ALJ erred by not adequately weighing/explaining treatment of medical opinions; errors not harmless given inconsistencies with RFC |
| Whether ALJ permissibly discounted counselor Blasdel’s time-based limitations | Blasdel’s form was a valid, probative RFC opinion from a treating behavioral-health provider and should have been evaluated under regulatory factors | ALJ argued form format was improper/confusing, co-signature by physician undermined reliability, and treatment notes did not support the opinion | Reversed: format and co-signature are not valid bases to reject opinion; ALJ failed to explain why GLMH notes did not support Blasdel, so discounting was unsupported |
| Credibility of claimant’s mental symptom testimony | Harrold says ALJ’s credibility finding was boilerplate and did not address mental symptoms specifically or link findings to record evidence | Commissioner relies on ALJ’s finding that claimant had gaps in care and inconsistencies with objective evidence | Reversed: credibility finding inadequately tied to record and did not address mental symptom testimony as required by SSR 96-7p and governing standards |
| Whether ALJ considered all relevant record evidence (including GLMH notes and GAF scores) | ALJ ignored significantly probative evidence (GLMH notes, GAF scores, reported panic/anxiety, hallucinations) that could support disability | Commissioner argues other evidence supports ALJ’s conclusion and errors are harmless | Reversed & remanded: ALJ must consider GLMH treatment records, discuss evidence he relies on and reasons for rejecting probative contrary evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir.) (ALJ must provide specific, legitimate reasons when discounting medical opinions)
- Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729 (10th Cir.) (appellate standard of review for ALJ decisions)
- Frantz v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir.) (ALJ must evaluate opinion evidence and explain weight given)
- Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir.) (GAF score ranges and their evidentiary import)
- Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir.) (opinions from non-acceptable medical sources are important and must be evaluated)
- Mays v. Colvin, 739 F.3d 569 (10th Cir.) (omitted opinion is harmless only if consistent with RFC)
- Hardman v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 676 (10th Cir.) (credibility findings must be closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence)
- Haga v. Astrue, 482 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir.) (court will not uphold ALJ decision based on post-hoc rationalizations)
- Vigil v. Colvin, 805 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir.) (restriction to unskilled work does not necessarily capture particular mental limitations)
- Wells v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 1061 (10th Cir.) (distinguishing functions of §404.1520a technique from detailed RFC assessment)
- Pate-Fires v. Astrue, 564 F.3d 935 (8th Cir.) (GAF scores below 50 generally incompatible with ability to work)