Newbold v. Astrue
718 F.3d 1257
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Newbold applied for DIB/SSI in 2008 alleging fibromyalgia, fatigue, depression, anxiety, and migraines; benefits denied at initial and reconsideration, heard by ALJ in 2009 who found disabled Oct 1, 2006–Nov 1, 2007 and non-disabled thereafter due to medical improvement; ALJ determined improvement related to work ability as of Nov 2, 2007 and RFC increased; Dr. McMillan treating rheumatologist gave post-2007 opinions the ALJ gave diminished weight; VE testimony aided the cessation decision; Appeals Council denied review, magistrate affirmed, and Newbold appeals; the issue is whether the medical-improvement standard was properly applied in cessation decision.
- The ALJ applied the medical-improvement framework to closed-period benefits, comparing current impairment severity with the Oct 1, 2006 onset and reassessing RFC post-Nov 2, 2007.
- The ALJ relied on evidence from 2007–2009, including clinic notes, functional improvements, and Newbold’s daily activities, to conclude medical-improvement occurred and related to work ability.
- Dr. McMillan’s post-2007 opinion was not given controlling weight and was found inconsistent with other evidence and activities of daily living.
- Credibility findings tied Newbold’s subjective complaints after Nov 2, 2007 to objective RFC and daily activities; the ALJ’s hypothetical to the VE reflected the record-supported limitations.
- The district court’s judgment affirming the cessation decision was upheld on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there medical improvement related to work ability as of Nov 2, 2007? | Newbold argues improvement was not shown by objective signs. | The ALJ properly found medical improvement based on decreased medical severity and RFC change. | Yes; medical improvement related to work ability found. |
| Did the ALJ properly weigh Dr. McMillan’s post-2007 opinion? | Dr. McMillan's post-2007 opinion should control. | ALJ gave diminished weight with specific, legitimate reasons. | Yes; weight properly assessed. |
| Was Newbold’s credibility properly evaluated post-Nov 2, 2007? | ALJ failed to credibly discount symptoms. | ALJ tied credibility to updated RFC and evidence. | Yes; credibility supported by substantial evidence. |
| Did the hypothetical to the VE include limitations after Nov 1, 2007? | Hypothetical should include all post-2007 limits. | Hypothetical reflected record-supported impairments. | Yes; appropriately limited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepherd v. Apfel, 184 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 1999) (establishes MI standard in cessation for closed periods)
- Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009) (describes five-step framework and substantial evidence standard)
- Hayden v. Barnhart, 374 F.3d 986 (10th Cir. 2004) (reassess RFC in cessation analysis; compare to prior RFC)
- Robinson v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2004) (need for explicit weight reasons when discounting treating opinions)
- Poppa v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2009) (credibility and RFC interrelation in MI context)
- Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368 (10th Cir. 2000) (requires linking credibility findings to substantial evidence)
- Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2010) (daily activities support or undermine credibility)
- Decker v. Chater, 86 F.3d 953 (10th Cir. 1996) (relevance of willingness to work to credibility)
- Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2005) (credibility determinations must be firmly grounded in evidence)
- Glenn v. Shalala, 21 F.3d 983 (10th Cir. 1994) (measurement of medical improvement and signs/lab findings)