Parker v. Colvin
676 F. App'x 798
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael E. Parker (born c. 1968) applied for DIB and SSI claiming disability from April 1, 2005, due to lung disease, chronic back pain, and knee pain; records also show intermittent treatment for depression, anxiety, substance abuse, hypertension, and Bell’s palsy.
- Initial and reconsideration claims were denied; Parker had administrative hearings and three different ALJs ultimately found him not disabled; two prior ALJ decisions were remanded by the district court but the third ALJ decision (Aug. 28, 2015) was affirmed below.
- ALJ applied the five-step sequential evaluation: found severe impairments (degenerative disc disease, tendonitis, interstitial lung disease), nonsevere mental/other impairments, and determined an RFC for sedentary work with nonexertional limits.
- ALJ found Parker could not perform past work but could perform other unskilled sedentary jobs (credit checker, administrative support worker, production checker) and thus was not disabled at step five.
- The ALJ discounted Parker’s subjective symptom statements as not entirely credible, noted sporadic treatment and work history, and evaluated medical opinions (including a treating physician’s) against the record.
- The Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed the Commissioner’s denial; Parker, proceeding pro se on appeal, challenged the RFC and the ALJ’s treatment of the treating physician’s opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ’s RFC finding (sedentary work) is supported by substantial evidence | Parker: RFC is too generous; he cannot perform sedentary work due to physical limitations | Commissioner: RFC is supported by medical evidence, record review, and proper credibility assessment | Affirmed: RFC supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated Parker’s credibility and symptom testimony | Parker: ALJ erred in discounting his statements about intensity/limitation of symptoms | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly considered treatment history, work/earnings record, and inconsistencies | Affirmed: credibility finding reasonable and supported |
| Whether ALJ gave proper weight to treating physician Dr. Katta’s opinion | Parker: ALJ should have found disability based on Dr. Katta’s opinion | Commissioner: ALJ adequately weighed treating opinion against the record and explained reasons | Affirmed: ALJ’s weighing of medical opinions proper |
| Whether procedural or legal error occurred warranting remand | Parker: generally challenges ALJ’s conclusions but fails to identify specific legal errors | Commissioner: decision free of legal error; supported by district court’s reasoning | Affirmed: no reversible legal error; decision supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 2011) (standard of review and finality when Appeals Council denies review)
- Vigil v. Colvin, 805 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2015) (court must not reweigh evidence; reviews for legal error and substantial evidence)
- Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2010) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence is more than a scintilla)
- Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2003) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (court will not construct arguments or search the record for a pro se litigant)