430 F. App'x 732
10th Cir.2011Background
- Kilinski sought Social Security disability benefits beginning December 1, 1999, alleging multiple impairments including cancer-related fatigue and pain.
- She underwent ovarian cancer surgery in 1999 and chemotherapy from January to May 2000, with subsequent fatigue, anemia, and depressive symptoms.
- X-rays in 2000 showed significant left-thumb arthritis; she later reported thumb pain limiting keyboard use to about one hour daily.
- Her work attempts in 2001–2003 were limited and briefly held due to fatigue and concentration problems; VE testified extensive keyboarding was required for past work.
- The ALJ found no disability before October 1, 2003, determining RFC to perform past work as a technical writer, and the Appeals Council denied review.
- The district court and Kilinski argued the ALJ erred in RFC assessment, weighting of treating physician, credibility, and failure to compare past work demands; the case is remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RFC properly included manipulative limits | Kilinski's thumb arthritis and keyboarding limits were underconsidered. | RFC accounted for sedentary work within the record. | Remand for incorporation of manipulative limits. |
| Whether fatigue and loss of exertional strength were properly considered | ALJ failed to evaluate fatigue and loss of exertional strength affecting RFC. | Record supported some restoration of function; fatigue not fully considered was harmless. | Remand to assess fatigue and exertional limits. |
| Whether the ALJ properly compared past work demands with Kilinski's capabilities | No adequate inquiry into the demands of the technical writer job and past work comparison. | RFC findings sufficient to conclude lack of past work limitations were supported by evidence. | Remand to perform a proper past-work comparison. |
| Whether the treating physician's opinion (Dr. Davidson) was properly weighed | Dr. Davidson's 2004 opinion should be given more weight. | Opinion was not supported by objective evidence and inconsistent with record; ALJ appropriately gave it little weight. | No reversible error; opinion weighed appropriately, but remand could reconsider. |
| Whether credibility and subjective complaints were properly evaluated | ALJ did not properly assess Kilinski's credibility, especially regarding thumb pain. | Evidence supported the RFC findings including variability in symptoms. | Remand to reevaluate credibility and subjective complaints. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence and legal standard review)
- Flaherty v. Astrue, 515 F.3d 1067 (10th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence and deference to agency findings)
- Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 2011) (treating physician weight and reasoned analysis required)
- Hayden v. Barnhart, 374 F.3d 986 (10th Cir. 2004) (obligation to investigate physical and mental demands of past work)
- Haga v. Astrue, 482 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2007) (RFC must reflect ability to sustain eight hours per day work schedule)
- Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2010) (consideration of limiting effects of all impairments including fatigue)
- Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir. 1996) (burden to relate RFC to past work and substantial evidence standard)
- Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387 (10th Cir. 1995) (reasoned explanation required for RFC findings)