Richards v. Colvin
640 F. App'x 786
10th Cir.2016Background
- Richards applied for SSDI and SSI claiming disability beginning November 2010; ALJ found several severe impairments including degenerative disc disease, COPD, learning disorder, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and PTSD.
- ALJ concluded impairments do not meet or equal a listing and assigned an RFC for light work with multiple restrictions (e.g., simple instructions only, no public contact, only incidental coworker/supervisor contact, avoid concentrated respiratory irritants).
- ALJ found Richards only partially credible and gave great weight to state agency consultants whose opinions comported with the RFC.
- ALJ determined Richards could not perform past relevant work but, based on vocational expert (VE) testimony using the ALJ’s hypothetical, could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers — so claimant not disabled.
- Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed; Richards appealed to the Tenth Circuit raising challenges to the RFC, treatment of GAF scores, credibility analysis, and reliance on the VE.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to include urinary incontinence & function-by-function assessment in RFC | Richards: ALJ omitted in RFC and failed to perform required function-by-function analysis | Commissioner: Issue not raised below; plain-error standard not met | Waived on appeal for failure to raise in district court; no plain-error showing |
| RFC omission of limitation for learning disorder / literacy | Richards: RFC should limit reading/communication given alleged 1st-grade reading level | Commissioner: ALJ found Richards has "limited" education and can communicate in English; evidence supports ALJ’s finding | No error; Richards failed to show ALJ’s contrary finding lacks substantial evidence |
| Whether RFC’s "simple work" limitations adequately address mental impairments | Richards: Simple-work limits insufficient for learning disorder, depression, bipolar, PTSD | Commissioner: RFC also limits social contact, changes, and decision-making; case law supports simple-work limits addressing moderate deficits | Held adequate: ALJ’s moderate-function findings and RFC limitations sufficiently account for mental impairments (citing Vigil) |
| Treatment of GAF scores and whether they are medical opinions | Richards: ALJ ignored/failed to weigh low GAF scores (40–48) which contradict RFC/state-agency opinions | Commissioner: ALJ considered relevant records and state-agency reviews that included the GAF scores; GAFs alone not necessarily probative or dispositive | No reversible error: ALJ considered record; GAFs not shown to be significantly probative or identified as medical opinions for separate weighing; issue inadequately preserved/briefed |
| Credibility assessment (use of daily activities, boilerplate language) | Richards: ALJ failed to link credibility findings to specific evidence and used boilerplate; pre-determined RFC | Commissioner: Plaintiff waived many credibility challenges by not preserving them; ALJ’s reasoning supported by record | Waived or insufficiently developed on appeal; no reversible error found |
| Reliance on VE testimony at Step Five | Richards: VE testimony based on flawed RFC/hypothetical | Commissioner: Hypothetical included all ALJ-found limitations | Held adequate: VE testimony supported step-five conclusion because hypothetical matched ALJ’s RFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009) (sequential evaluation framework and ALJ credibility principles)
- Vigil v. Colvin, 805 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2015) (limitations to unskilled/simple work can address moderate deficiencies in concentration, persistence, and pace)
- Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 1996) (ALJ must discuss significantly probative evidence he rejects)
- Barnett v. Apfel, 231 F.3d 687 (10th Cir. 2000) (hypothetical to VE sufficient if it includes all limitations found by ALJ)
- Somerlott v. Cherokee Nation Distribs., Inc., 686 F.3d 1144 (10th Cir. 2012) (preservation of issues for appeal)
- Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2011) (plain-error standard for new issues on appeal)
- Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2004) (GAF explained as clinician’s overall functioning judgment)
- Howard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235 (6th Cir. 2002) (GAF may help but is not essential to RFC accuracy)
- Port City Prop. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 518 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2008) (issues not raised before district court/magistrate may be waived on appeal)
- Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2007) (appellate courts decline to consider cursory arguments unsupported by analysis)
- Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120 (10th Cir. 2010) (failure to object to magistrate judge’s R&R waives appellate review)
- United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 1996) (specificity required in objections to preserve issues)