Mast v. Colvin
1:14-cv-02660
| D. Colo. | Jul 15, 2015Background
- Michael Mast (born 1979) applied for DIB and SSI in 2011, alleging disability from August 1, 2009 due to PTSD, bipolar disorder, antisocial behavior and related symptoms; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council declined review.
- Administrative record includes consultative exams (Dr. Wright — physical; Dr. Warfield — psychiatry), state psychological review (Dr. Ryan), treatment notes from ADMHN and Spanish Peaks, and nurse/therapist assessments (Nurse Jackson, Nurse Sandoval, Lucy DeMuth, Lois Sandland).
- Dr. Warfield (consultative) noted poor effort but diagnosed anxiety disorder and likely antisocial personality disorder and opined interpersonal difficulties; Dr. Ryan (state reviewer) assessed moderate limitations but concluded claimant could follow simple instructions and have limited coworker/supervisor contact.
- ALJ found severe impairments of bipolar/mood disorder and personality disorder, assigned an RFC for full range of exertional work but limited to unskilled, routine, repetitive jobs with no public interaction, only occasional coworker contact, and no tandem tasks; claimant found able to perform certain cleaning/housekeeping jobs per VE testimony.
- District court reviewed the ALJ’s weighing of medical opinions and RFC formulation, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further consideration because the RFC may not have adequately incorporated moderate concentration/persistence/pace limits as to Dr. Ryan’s findings in light of Jaramillo.
Issues
| Issue | Mast's Argument | Colvin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ failed to state weight given to Dr. Warfield | Mast: ALJ did not specify weight and did not explain consistency between RFC and Warfield | Colvin: ALJ discussed Warfield’s findings and expressly assigned great weight; discussion shows reasons | Court: ALJ assigned great weight and gave adequate reasons; no error on this point |
| ALJ gave invalid reasons for great weight to Dr. Ryan | Mast: ALJ merely said Ryan’s opinion was supported without tying to record or factors | Colvin: ALJ summarized record and explained Ryan’s opinion was consistent with RFC | Court: Reasons were sufficient; ALJ applied correct standards |
| ALJ failed to incorporate Dr. Ryan’s moderate limitations into RFC | Mast: Ryan’s moderate limits (detailed instructions; attention/pace; supervision) were not expressed in RFC/hypothetical | Colvin: RFC and VE testimony addressed limited supervision and simple, routine tasks | Court: Remand required — under Jaramillo the ALJ must more clearly relate moderate limitations to work-related functions; current record insufficiently ties RFC/VE to Ryan’s moderate limits |
| ALJ relied on "unweighed" evidence (Nurse Sandoval) to find ability to do unskilled work | Mast: ALJ cited Sandoval without stating weight and relied on non-acceptable medical source | Colvin: ALJ used Sandoval’s observations among other record evidence (GED, consult exams) and did not rely solely on her | Court: ALJ properly considered Sandoval as non-acceptable source and used multiple record items to justify RFC; no reversible error |
| ALJ improperly evaluated Nurse Jackson’s (ADMHN) opinion | Mast: ALJ omitted specific Jackson limitations (attention, workweek interruptions, pace) without adequate explanation | Colvin: ALJ discounted portions of Jackson’s opinion for lack of support, brief treatment relationship, and counsel-requested form; retained limitations supported by record | Court: ALJ gave legitimate reasons for discounting aspects of Jackson’s opinion; omission not reversible but overall RFC issue remains tied to remand above |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (defines disability standard under Social Security)
- Trujillo v. Richardson, 429 F.2d 1149 (10th Cir. 1970) (substantial-evidence standard described)
- Campbell v. Bowen, 822 F.2d 1518 (10th Cir. 1987) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must state weight given to medical opinions with reasons)
- Jaramillo v. Colvin, [citation="576 F. App'x 870"] (10th Cir. 2014) (RFC limiting to simple, routine, repetitive work does not necessarily capture moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace; remand required when ALJ fails to translate moderate limits into work-related functions)