Lewis v. Berryhill
680 F. App'x 646
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ms. Dianna L. Lewis applied for Social Security disability benefits, which require inability to perform work in the national economy.
- The administrative law judge (ALJ) gave no weight to Dr. Muckala’s assessment, though he had treated Lewis from May 2010 to November 2011.
- Dr. Muckala’s assessment was written about sixteen months after his last examination of Lewis.
- The ALJ rejected the assessment on two grounds: the delay and purported inconsistencies with the medical record, but both grounds were inadequately explained.
- The ALJ discounted Lewis’s credibility partly based on inconsistencies in daily activities and the absence of pain medication, and on a purported poor work record.
- The court found the ALJ failed to provide specific, legitimate reasons to reject Dr. Muckala’s opinion and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ err in weighing Dr. Muckala’s opinion? | Lewis contends the ALJ failed to properly weigh the treating source. | Muckala’s opinion was not given weight due to delay and alleged inconsistencies. | Remanded for proper consideration of Dr. Muckala’s opinion |
| Was Lewis’s credibility properly evaluated? | Lewis asserts her credibility was not adequately credited for pain and functional limitations. | The ALJ had valid reasons to question credibility based on daily activities and other factors. | Credibility re-evaluation required on remand |
| Should the ALJ reconsider both the medical opinion and credibility on remand? | Reassessment should incorporate proper legal standards for treating opinions and credibility. | The existing grounds were insufficiently specific; remand allows proper articulation. | Remand for further proceedings consistent with this order |
Key Cases Cited
- Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729 (10th Cir. 2005) (de novo review and standard for district court)
- Nguyen v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1400 (10th Cir. 1994) (standard of review in SSA appeal)
- Hamlin v. Barnhart, 365 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2004) (reversal when not applying correct standards or not supported by substantial evidence)
- Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2003) (requirement for specific, legitimate reasons when rejecting medical opinions)
- Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2004) (opinion must be sufficiently specific for meaningful review)
- Barnett v. Apfel, 231 F.3d 687 (10th Cir. 2000) (careful consideration of credibility and pain complaints)