541 F. App'x 794
10th Cir.2013Background
- Moua applied for social security disability benefits alleging March 1, 2004 onset due to left arm injury, headaches, right shoulder/arm pain, high blood pressure, depression, and fatigue.
- Treating physicians noted left arm pain and weakness with surgery in November 2007; by June 2008 Dr. Watts assessed 27% permanent partial disability but found no particular work restrictions.
- Ms. Moua received ongoing treatment from Dr. Bhakta (2004–2009) and Dr. Peterson (2009), with medications for pain management.
- DDS/Dr. Boyd examined Moua and found no ulnar nerve dysfunction and opined she could use both hands for gross and fine manipulation; Dr. Morgan’s Psy.D. found only mild functional limitations and no mental disorder.
- ALJ held Moua unable to perform past work but capable of other work in the national economy; Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed.
- On appeal, Moua challenged the ALJ’s weighing of medical opinions, the RFC assessment, and credibility findings related to pain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ properly weigh medical opinions? | Moua argues the ALJ undervalued or ignored key opinions (e.g., glove-like sensation, left-hand limitations). | Moua's arguments are unsupported by the record; the ALJ properly weighed consistent opinions and did not misinterpret evidence. | No reversible error; substantial evidence supports the weighing of medical opinions. |
| Was the RFC assessment incomplete by omitting a left-arm/hand limitation? | ALJ failed to include a left-arm/hand restriction though the record shows a severe impairment. | Hypothetical to the VE included left-arm/hand limitation; any omission in the written RFC is harmless. | Harmless error; substantial evidence supports the RFC as reflected in the VE’s testimony. |
| Did the ALJ properly account for depression, hypertension, and headaches in the hypothetical to the VE? | ALJ should have included these conditions as work-limiting impairments in the hypothetical. | The ALJ found affective disorder non-limiting and no work restrictions from hypertension/headaches; the hypothetical was adequate. | Hypothetical adequately reflected the record; no error. |
| Was Moua's credibility properly evaluated in light of pain complaints and medication use? | ALJ undervalued persistence of pain and side effects from medications; used boilerplate language. | Credibility determinations are up to the finder of fact and supported by substantial evidence; boilerplate language alone is insufficient to remand. | Credibility properly analyzed and supported by substantial evidence; no remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009) (five-step framework and credibility tied to substantial evidence)
- Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2012) (definition of substantial evidence and credibility linkage)
- Flaherty v. Astrue, 515 F.3d 1067 (10th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence standard; not reweighing evidence)
- Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 2011) (treating physician opinions must be well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence)
- Hamlin v. Barnhart, 365 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2004) (ALJ must discuss significantly probative evidence)
- Hardman v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 676 (10th Cir. 2004) (boilerplate credibility analysis requires more than cursory critique)
- Fisher v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 1055 (7th Cir. 1989) (remand not required for perfect opinion without compelling reason)