Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue
695 F.3d 1156
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Keyes-Zachary appeals district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits; her filing date was June 7, 2004.
- ALJ denied her initial 2004 applications; after two hearings (2006 and 2009) the ALJ found she could perform light work with restrictions.
- RFC described: lift/carry 20 pounds, stand/walk 6 hours, sit 6 hours, occasional bending, limited right-hand use, adverse environments; could perform simple, repetitive tasks.
- Claim challenged the ALJ’s weighing of medical opinions, credibility assessment, and consideration of medical evidence.
- VE testified jobs existed in the national economy; ALJ applied Medical-Vocational Guidelines to conclude not disabled.
- Appeals Council declined jurisdiction; district court upheld denial on review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ properly weigh medical opinions in the record? | Keyes-Zachary argues several opinions were not weighed. | Keyes-Zachary’s arguments ignored substantial evidence; harmless error possible. | No reversible error; any errors were harmless or adequately explained. |
| Was the credibility determination proper under Luna v. Bowen? | ALJ failed to apply Luna factors and discuss credibility sufficiently. | ALJ discussed Luna factors and tied them to evidence; no reversible error. | ALJ’s credibility assessment supported by substantial evidence. |
| Did the ALJ properly discuss daily activities and other factors affecting credibility? | ALJ relied on boilerplate and failed to link ADLs to medical evidence. | ALJ tied ADLs to evidence; statements were not solely determinative; comment on self-imposed limits was permissible. | No reversible error; ADL discussion was sufficiently integrated with the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2010) (standard for substantial evidence review of factual findings)
- Hardman v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 676 (10th Cir. 2004) (avoidance of boilerplate in credibility determinations)
- Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368 (10th Cir. 2000) (requires linkage of credibility findings to substantial evidence)
- Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009) (ADL verifications and credibility regarding daily limitations)
- Hayden v. Barnhart, 374 F.3d 986 (10th Cir. 2004) (requires clear identification of credibility findings)