Krauser v. Astrue
638 F.3d 1324
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Krauser appeals a district court decision affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability and SSI benefits under the SSA five‑step framework.
- ALJ found no substantial gainful activity since onset, severe impairments (DJD, diabetes, hepatitis B/C, hypertension), no per‑se disability, RFC for medium work, and some transferable skills leading to other jobs.
- Appeals Council granted review but did not change the ALJ’s decision, though it admitted additional evidence.
- Krauser challenged depression analysis, treating‑physician opinions, credibility, and the Step‑5 VE‑hypothetical.
- Court remands for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, including consideration of new depression evidence for an extended disability period.
- The case involves evaluating how new evidence submitted after the ALJ affects the prior disability determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Depression evidence and development | Krauser argues depression is a medically determinable impairment and should have been developed. | Astrue contends insufficient evidence before the ALJ to determine a mental impairment and no duty to develop. | Remand for further proceedings to address depression impact. |
| Treating physician opinions | Dr. Lambert's limitations should receive substantial weight and affect RFC. | ALJ properly treated Lambert’s opinion as non‑controlling and need not detail weight. | Remand required to articulate weight and reasons under the two‑step framework. |
| Credibility assessment | Credibility undermined by medical opinions supporting limitations. | Daily activities and other factors justify reduced credibility. | Remand to reassess credibility in light of treating opinions. |
| Step Five VE hypothetical | VE not properly guided by explicit job demands matching impairments. | At step five, VE evaluation is acceptable without perfect job‑demands mapping. | No reversible error; issue moot due to remand for additional impairments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawkins v. Chater, 982 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1997) (burden to show a medically determinable impairment requires some testing)
- Carter v. Chater, 63 F.3d 1074 (10th Cir. 1995) (duty to develop the record when depression diagnosed)
- Chambers v. Barnhart, 389 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2004) (evidence submitted to Appeals Council must be considered if new, material, related)
- Martinez v. Barnhart, 444 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2006) (admission of new evidence may affect judicial review when qualifying)
- Hill v. Astrue, 289 Fed.Appx. 289 (10th Cir. 2008) (context on handling new evidence and review)
- Foy v. Barnhart, 139 Fed.Appx. 39 (10th Cir. 2005) (new evidence standards on judicial review)
- Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2004) (treating opinions: two‑step evaluation and factors for weight)
- Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2003) (treating‑opinion analysis and deference framework)
- Berna v. Chater, 101 F.3d 631 (10th Cir. 1996) (step-five and VE interaction standards)
- Threet v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2003) (de novo review of new evidence in certain contexts)