Lee v. Berryhill
690 F. App'x 589
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Lee, diagnosed with diabetes (2004–05) and using an insulin pump since 2010, stopped working as a senior phlebotomist on January 4, 2012, and applied for SSDI/SSI with that onset date.
- ALJ found severe impairments: diabetes mellitus and hypothyroidism; did not find a listed impairment met or equaled.
- ALJ assessed an RFC for a wide range of light work with only "normal breaks."
- Based on VE testimony, ALJ concluded Lee could perform her past relevant work and other jobs, denying benefits at step four (and alternatively at step five).
- Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed; Lee appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RFC must include unscheduled breaks | Lee: Medical opinions show she needs unscheduled breaks to manage pump and restroom needs, so RFC requiring only normal breaks is insufficient | Commissioner: Medical evidence supports that normal breaks (≈every 2 hours) allow glucose checks and pump management; VE testimony does not mandate unscheduled breaks here | Court: Affirmed ALJ — substantial evidence supports normal-break RFC and ALJ's credibility/weight choices (no reweighing) |
| Whether ALJ erred in evaluating claimant noncompliance with treatment | Lee: ALJ should apply Frey factors and show compliance would restore ability to work or noncompliance was unjustified | Commissioner: Frey not required when ALJ didn’t deny for failure to follow treatment (Qualls) | Court: Followed earlier precedent requiring Frey factors but found ALJ’s findings addressed key Frey considerations implicitly and discussed claimant’s reasons for noncompliance; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2010) (standard for substantial evidence review in SSA cases)
- Knight ex rel. P.K. v. Colvin, 756 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2014) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (appellate courts do not reweigh evidence)
- Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508 (10th Cir. 1987) (factors for evaluating noncompliance with prescribed treatment)
- Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368 (10th Cir. 2000) (discussing limits of Frey application)
- Thompson v. Sullivan, 987 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir. 1993) (ALJ should consider Frey factors before relying on noncompliance to find noncredibility)
- Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2012) (de minimis or technical omissions in ALJ reasoning do not always require reversal)
- Haynes v. Williams, 88 F.3d 898 (10th Cir. 1996) (panels should follow earlier intra-circuit precedent)