Patterson v. Colvin
662 F. App'x 634
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Kenneth Patterson (b. 1964) applied for DIB and SSI, claiming disability beginning Nov. 11, 2010, due to back and mental impairments.
- An ALJ denied benefits (Jan. 11, 2013), finding Patterson could not do past relevant work but had RFC for less-than-full range of light, simple unskilled work; denial affirmed by Appeals Council and district court.
- Medical imaging (2010–2013) showed degenerative changes and some foraminal/central narrowing but no clear, contemporaneous nerve-root compression meeting Listing 1.04(A).
- Psychological records: consultative examiner (Dr. Klemens) and state agency reviewers found relatively mild limitations; a treating psychologist’s post-decision report rated marked limitations but was inconsistent with prior records and did not show 12-month duration.
- Appeals Council received some records dated through March 8, 2013, but declined to consider later records (April–Aug. 2013) as not related to the pre-decision period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Patterson’s spine impairment met or equaled Listing 1.04(A) | Patterson: imaging and symptoms show nerve-root compromise or medical equivalence to the listing | Government: record lacks required objective evidence of nerve-root compression and 12-month durational proof; pain cannot substitute for missing signs | Court: Affirmed ALJ — substantial evidence that Listing 1.04(A) not met or equaled |
| Whether RFC failed to account for mental limitations (social functioning; concentration/persistence/pace) | Patterson: step‑3 moderate limits require greater RFC restrictions than simple unskilled work | Government: step‑3 ratings are for severity rating and do not automatically translate to RFC; consultative and state opinions support simple unskilled work limit | Court: Affirmed ALJ — RFC limiting to simple, routine, repetitive tasks adequately accounts for mental limits |
| Whether ALJ’s credibility and symptom evaluation was improper | Patterson: ALJ misstated activities, overemphasized failure to pursue PT/surgery, misread hours worked, and failed to address employer report fully | Government: ALJ permissibly considered treatment choices, contemporaneous activities, employer remarks, and no treating physician opining disability | Court: Affirmed ALJ — credibility findings are supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether Appeals Council erred by not considering later medical records | Patterson: post-decision records show his condition was that severe earlier | Government: additional records not related to period before ALJ decision, so Appeals Council properly declined to consider them | Court: Affirmed Appeals Council — later records did not establish severity before ALJ date |
Key Cases Cited
- Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009) (explains five-step sequential evaluation framework)
- Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2010) (durational requirement and standard for disability)
- Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729 (10th Cir. 2005) (standard of appellate review for ALJ decisions)
- Flaherty v. Astrue, 515 F.3d 1067 (10th Cir. 2007) (definition of substantial evidence and appellate review limits)
- Chambers v. Barnhart, 389 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2004) (Appeals Council must consider evidence related to period on or before ALJ decision)
- Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (claimant must satisfy all criteria of a listing to be presumptively disabled)