576 F. App'x 870
10th Cir.2014Background
- Jaramillo applied for disability benefits alleging neck and back pain, depression, anxiety, clavicle fracture, and sleep apnea.
- ALJ denied benefits at step five after finding RFC to sedentary work with limits to simple, routine, repetitive, unskilled tasks and no direct sunlight.
- VE testified to three jobs supporting the ALJ’s denial: label cutter, dowel inspector, stop attacher.
- Three state consults addressed mental abilities: Wynne (mild concentration limitation), Mellon (moderate limitations in three areas), Walker (moderate limitations in nine areas but Section III narrative largely supportive of simple tasks).
- ALJ gave great weight to Mellon and Wynne; adopted Walker’s narrative but limited to unskilled work; relied on those opinions to formulate the RFC and dispositive hypothetical.
- Court remands to ensure moderate limitations are properly reflected in the RFC and dispositive hypothetical in accordance with SSR 96-8p and SSR 85-15.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RFC properly reflects mental impairments | Jaramillo argues Mellon’s moderate limits were not incorporated. | Commissioner contends simple/unskilled tasks capture impairments and Walker’s narrative supports it. | Remand required; moderate Mellon limits must be linked to work-related functions in RFC. |
| Whether the hypothetical to the VE incorporated all impairments | Hypothetical fails to convey Mellon’s moderate limitations. | Hypothetical accounts for simple, routine tasks; Walker’s narrative supports it. | Remand; VE testimony not supported by substantial evidence as to Mellon’s moderate limits. |
| Whether the ALJ properly evaluated Walker’s Section I vs. Section III findings | ALJ failed to discuss or include several Section I moderate limitations in RFC/Section III. | No preserved error given remand; arguments not fully developed on appeal. | Remand to consider whether any Walker Section I limitations affect RFC and narrative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haga v. Astrue, 482 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2007) (moderate impairments must be accounted for in RFC)
- Frantz v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 2007) (remand when moderate limitations not reflected in RFC)
- Evans v. Chater, 55 F.3d 530 (10th Cir. 1995) (hypotheticals must include all impairments borne out by record)
- Hargis v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir. 1991) (precise relation of impairments to RFC required for VE)
- Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2012) (distinction between mental functions and skills in SSR 96-8p context)