Hendron v. Colvin
767 F.3d 951
10th Cir.2014Background
- Hendron’s third SSA disability application; insured status expired December 31, 1995.
- ALJ found no disability during the Relevant Time Period (Nov 1, 1995–Dec 31, 1995) and RFC limited to full range of sedentary work.
- ALJ concluded earnings/activity not indicative of disability; found past work not supported and other work exists in the national economy.
- District court reversed and remanded for further development; suggested re-contacting physicians or obtaining additional records.
- Court reverses district court, directs judgment for Commissioner and vacatur of remand order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFC narrative sufficiency | Hendron: RFC lacks narrative tying evidence to conclusions. | Hendron: ALJ provided adequate narrative and substantial evidence supports RFC. | RFC narrative adequate; supported by substantial evidence. |
| Form of RFC and function-by-function analysis | RFC not in proper form; needs function-by-function discussion. | RFC properly reflects abilities within sedentary range without explicit function-by-function listing. | No reversible error; function-by-function analysis not required to alter outcome. |
| Remand for further development | Remand necessary to develop record and resolve ambiguities. | Remand unnecessary and futile given time elapsed and records already considered. | Remand unnecessary; district court should enter judgment for Commissioner. |
| Consideration of intermittent activities and Clifton duty | ALJ failed to discuss probative foot problems and Clifton requirements. | Record considered; intermittent activities show non-extreme limitations; Clifton satisfied. | No error; ALJ properly considered evidence and did not omit significantly probative material. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glass v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1392 (10th Cir. 1994) (substantial evidence standard; failure to apply legal standards may require reversal)
- Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 1996) (ALJ must discuss significantly probative evidence the claimant rejects)
- Poppa v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2009) (credibility evaluation intertwined with RFC assessment)
- Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2012) (-emphasizes common-sense review; technical perfection not required)
- Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (cannot reweigh evidence; review sufficiency of evidence, not its weight)
- Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748 (10th Cir. 1988) (outlines steps of sequential evaluation; relevance to substantial evidence)