Newbauer v. Colvin
3:14-cv-03548
N.D. Tex.Mar 21, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Anna M. Newbauer applied for DIB alleging onset April 20, 2011, from knee injury, depression/anxiety/ADHD, insomnia, and later shoulder problems; denied by ALJ and Appeals Council; district court review followed.
- Extensive treatment record for right knee: MRI-confirmed meniscal tear, arthroscopy/chondroplasty (July 2011), therapy, later ACL progression and new chondral injury after fall (late 2012); treating orthopedist (Dr. Port) recommended further surgery; impairment ratings varied (0% → 7%).
- Mental health history: hospitalizations (Dec 2010), ongoing psychiatric treatment for MDD and ADHD, SAMC psychiatric reviews found mild-to-moderate limitations and recommended simple/noncomplex tasks.
- ALJ findings: severe impairments—chondroplasty of right knee, ADHD, recurrent mild MDD; RFC = full range of sedentary work (sit ~6 hrs, stand/walk up to 2–3 hrs, lift 10 lbs), limited to unskilled/simple work; no past relevant work; relied on Medical-Vocational Guidelines at step five to find not disabled.
- Plaintiff argued the RFC was unsupported: ALJ failed to (1) perform a function-by-function mental RFC tied to his paragraph B findings (moderate social functioning limits), and (2) evaluate the severity/effect of the right shoulder impairment and incorporate any reaching/handling limits into the RFC; court reviewed for substantial evidence and legal error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ performed required function-by-function mental RFC (paragraph B → RFC) | Newbauer: ALJ found moderate limits in social functioning at step three but failed to translate/describe specific work-related mental limitations in the RFC, requiring remand | Colvin: ALJ considered paragraph B limits, reduced RFC to simple 1–2 step tasks, and thus adequately accounted for mental limits | Court: ALJ erred by not conducting an explicit function-by-function mental RFC, but plaintiff failed to show prejudice from that omission; no remand on this ground. |
| Whether ALJ erred at step two by omitting claimant’s right shoulder as a severe impairment and failing to account for it in RFC/step five | Newbauer: Shoulder findings (diagnoses, MRI, injections, pain with overhead reaching) are medically determinable and could impose nonexertional limits (reaching/handling), so ALJ’s omission prejudiced the step-five analysis | Colvin: ALJ considered overall symptoms and medical evidence in RFC and still reached sedentary RFC supported by records | Court: ALJ committed legal error by not addressing the shoulder at step two and failing clearly to consider its effects in the RFC; error was not harmless and requires remand for reconsideration. |
| Whether reliance on Medical-Vocational Guidelines at step five was proper given potential nonexertional limitations | Newbauer: If shoulder or mental nonexertional limits were properly included, ALJ could not rely solely on the Grids; VE testimony would be required | Colvin: ALJ’s sedentary RFC (no significant nonexertional limits) permitted application of the Grids | Court: Because shoulder may impose nonexertional restrictions that were not considered, reliance on the Grids may have been improper; remand required to reassess and, if necessary, obtain VE evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 1994) (standard of judicial review: substantial evidence and correct legal standards)
- Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558 (5th Cir. 1995) (substantial-evidence standard; claimant burden at first four steps)
- Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698 (5th Cir. 2001) (use of paragraph B criteria and requirement to assess RFC when mental impairment is severe but not listed)
- Myers v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 617 (5th Cir. 2001) (function-by-function RFC assessment required under SSR 96-8p)
- Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2000) (when nonexertional limitations significantly affect RFC, ALJ must use VE testimony rather than rely solely on the Grids)
- Johnson v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 340 (5th Cir. 1988) (no substantial evidence where conspicuous absence of credible choices or contrary medical findings)
- Mays v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1362 (5th Cir. 1988) (procedural perfection not required; reversal only where substantial rights affected)