Moreland v. Colvin, 5:13-cv-00639

Plaintiff Frances Moreland (age 61 at filing) applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits, alleging onset October 31, 2008; SSA denied benefits and an ALJ held a hearing in Sept. 2010.
ALJ found severe impairments: hypertension, obesity, history of hernias, lumbar and cervical pain, and bilateral tricompartmental knee osteoarthritis, but concluded none singly or combined were presumptively disabling.
Treating physician Allen Hamaker, M.D., completed a July 2010 medical source statement asserting severe functional limits (e.g., cannot lift any weight, sitting <4 hours, standing/walking <2 hours total, requires leg elevation 25% of workday).
The ALJ gave little/ no weight to Dr. Hamaker’s extreme functional restrictions, finding them unsupported by the doctor’s own treatment notes, objective testing, and inconsistent with other record evidence (including consultative exam by Dr. Burke and imaging).
ALJ assessed Plaintiff’s RFC as capable of a wide range of light work and found she could perform her past relevant work as a telemarketer and appointment clerk; Appeals Council denied review, and the magistrate judge recommended affirming the Commissioner.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly weighed treating physician opinion	Moreland: ALJ improperly rejected Hamaker without applying the 6-factor treating-source analysis and gave inadequate reasons	Commissioner: ALJ reasonably discounted Hamaker’s opinion because it lacked clinical support and conflicted with other evidence; ALJ considered treating relationship	The ALJ properly considered and declined to defer to Hamaker because his extreme restrictions lacked objective support and were inconsistent with the record; rejection was supported
Whether ALJ erred by disregarding vocational expert (VE) testimony	Moreland: VE testified that if Hamaker’s limitations (e.g., leg elevation) were credited, no past work would be available; ALJ should have accepted that VE testimony	Commissioner: ALJ is not bound by VE answers based on hypothetical including limitations the ALJ rejected	Held for Commissioner: ALJ need not adopt VE testimony premised on limitations she did not accept

Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir.) (standard for substantial evidence review)
Bernal v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 297 (10th Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence and scintilla rule)
Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir.) (treating-physician controlling-weight framework and need for specific, legitimate reasons to reject)
Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir.) (ALJ must explain weight given to treating opinion and tie reasons to regulatory factors)
Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir.) (not every weighing factor applies in every case)
Talley v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 585 (10th Cir.) (ALJ need not accept VE testimony based on hypotheticals that include non-accepted limitations)
Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir.) (Appeals Council denial makes ALJ decision final)
Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir.) (giving little weight to an examining physician may amount to rejection)