Najera v. Social Security Administration
1:16-cv-00455
D.N.M.Aug 9, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Loretta Najera applied for SSDI and SSI alleging disability beginning April 5, 2012, based on cardiomyopathy, PTSD, bipolar disorder, and depression; initial denials were followed by an ALJ hearing and an adverse decision dated September 23, 2014.
- ALJ found severe impairments: cardiomyopathy and obesity; found mental conditions (PTSD, bipolar, depression, substance dependencies in remission) non-severe.
- ALJ determined Plaintiff’s RFC as able to perform the full range of light work and concluded she could perform past relevant work; Appeals Council denied review and this action followed.
- Plaintiff challenged: (1) the ALJ’s treatment of medical-opinion evidence from her primary care physician (Dr. Juliane Bohan), and (2) the RFC for allegedly failing to account for limiting effects of non-severe mental impairments.
- ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Bohan’s statements that Plaintiff was disabled, finding them opinions on an issue reserved to the Commissioner and noting the doctor provided no concrete functional limitations; ALJ relied on state agency consultants and consultative examiners.
- District Court reviewed for substantial evidence and correct legal standards and denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand, finding the ALJ’s analysis adequate and supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected treating physician statements (Dr. Bohan) | Najera: ALJ failed to apply SSR 96-5p and did not properly evaluate/treat Dr. Bohan’s opinions; remand required | Commissioner: ALJ appropriately discounted opinions that opined on disability (an issue reserved to the Commissioner) and Dr. Bohan offered no specific functional limitations | Court: ALJ did not err; she considered the records, permissibly gave little weight to disability conclusions, and provided sufficient narrative for review |
| Whether RFC omitted limitations from non-severe mental impairments | Najera: ALJ’s RFC (full range of light work) failed to incorporate mental limitations from PTSD, bipolar, depression | Commissioner: Plaintiff points to no specific, supported functional mental limitations that the ALJ omitted | Court: ALJ’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence; Plaintiff’s general allegations insufficient to require remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Maes v. Astrue, 522 F.3d 1093 (10th Cir. 2008) (standard of review: correct legal standards and substantial evidence)
- Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2004) (definition of substantial evidence and scope of review)
- Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007) (agency findings need not be supported by a preponderance)
- Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir. 1996) (ALJ must apply correct legal standards and show she has done so)
- Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (2003) (summary of the five-step sequential evaluation process)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (burden of proof at steps of sequential evaluation)
- Wells v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 1061 (10th Cir. 2013) (ALJ must consider combined effect of severe and non-severe impairments)
- Hendron v. Colvin, 767 F.3d 951 (10th Cir. 2014) (RFC must include narrative linking evidence to conclusions)
- Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (review limited to sufficiency of evidence, not reweighing)
- Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 1996) (ALJ must discuss uncontroverted and significantly probative evidence she rejects)