643 F. App'x 766
10th Cir.2016Background
- Tina Lane applied for DIB and SSI claiming disability from November 1, 2009; relevant work history includes nurse assistant and clerical jobs.
- ALJ found severe impairments: cervical degenerative disc disease, obesity, gastritis, COPD, anxiety, and depression; not disabled at step three.
- ALJ assessed RFC limiting Lane to light/sedentary, low-stress work with simple, routine tasks, no public contact, no concentrated pulmonary irritants, no temperature extremes, and no repetitive neck movement.
- State agency psychologist Dr. Sexton opined moderate limitations and that Lane could accept supervision and interact with coworkers only if contact was not frequent or prolonged; ALJ gave that opinion substantial weight but did not explicitly include the supervisor/coworker-contact restriction in the RFC or hypothetical to the VE.
- VE identified bottling-line attendant (DOT 920.687-042) as consistent with the RFC; that job involves minimal instruction-taking and talking and exists in significant numbers nationally.
- Magistrate judge and then this panel affirmed the denial of benefits; the court found any omission concerning Dr. Sexton’s “no frequent or prolonged” coworker/supervisor-contact limitation harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ failed to account for Dr. Sexton’s limitation that Lane can only accept supervision and interact with coworkers if contact is not frequent or prolonged | ALJ omitted that limitation from RFC and VE hypothetical, so RFC is incomplete | ALJ’s “low stress”/simple routine-work limitation implicitly covers restriction on frequent/prolonged coworker/supervisor contact | Any error was harmless because the jobs identified (e.g., bottling-line attendant) do not require frequent or prolonged supervisor/coworker interaction |
Key Cases Cited
- Vigil v. Colvin, 805 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for ALJ factfinding)
- Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009) (summary of the five-step sequential evaluation)
- Haga v. Astrue, 482 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2007) (court may not create post-hoc rationalizations for ALJ decisions)
- Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2012) (no direct correspondence required between RFC and a specific medical opinion)
- Barnett v. Apfel, 231 F.3d 687 (10th Cir. 2000) (ALJs should include reasoning to make appellate review meaningful)
- Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2004) (harmless-error standard for ALJ mistakes)
- Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2012) (appellate review must exercise common sense; ALJ explanations aid review)
- Raymond v. Astrue, 621 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2010) (what constitutes a significant number of jobs at step five)