Romero v. Colvin
3:16-cv-00504
W.D. Tex.Oct 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Teodoro Romero applied for disability insurance benefits and SSI; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council denied review, making ALJ decision final.
- Romero alleged disability from diabetes, glaucoma, arthritis, and insomnia (claim onset March 1, 2009).
- ALJ found severe impairments: diabetes, obesity, anxiety disorder, and affective disorder, but no listed impairment met or equaled listings.
- One-time consultative exam by Dr. Cesar Garcia (Mar. 2013) noted mild thoracolumbar ROM loss, asymmetric gait, and concluded mild-to-moderate limitations (sitting/standing/walking/lifting/bending). Romero’s treating records before and after showed largely normal gait and no pain.
- ALJ assessed an RFC for medium work with limitations on balancing, kneeling, crouching, crawling, and climbing; credited and incorporated Dr. Garcia’s limitations where appropriate and considered obesity.
- District court affirmed Commissioner, concluding ALJ properly considered Dr. Garcia’s opinion and that substantial evidence supports the RFC and non‑disability determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted or ignored Dr. Garcia’s consultative findings when formulating RFC | Romero: ALJ ignored Dr. Garcia’s opinion about back-related limitations, which would preclude medium work | Commissioner: ALJ did not ignore Garcia; ALJ incorporated Garcia’s limitations and also relied on treating records showing minimal pain and normal gait | Court: ALJ incorporated Garcia’s findings into RFC and relied on record; no error, substantial evidence supports RFC |
| Whether the ALJ failed to account for back impairment though not a basis of application | Romero: Back limitations would change disability finding | Commissioner: Romero did not claim disability based on back and treating records do not support ongoing back impairment | Court: Noting Romero never applied based on back and records show normal findings except March 2013, court affirmed ALJ’s assessment |
| Whether ALJ properly considered obesity in RFC | Romero: (not clearly argued) | Commissioner: ALJ considered obesity and its effects per SSR 02-1p | Court: ALJ treated obesity as severe and accounted for its effects; no error |
| Whether substantial evidence supports denial of benefits | Romero: Record shows greater limitations than found | Commissioner: Record as a whole supports ALJ’s findings and RFC | Court: Substantial evidence supports ALJ’s decision; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2005) (standard for judicial review of SSA decisions and substantial-evidence framework)
- Masterson v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 267 (5th Cir. 2002) (definition of substantial evidence and review limitations)
- Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698 (5th Cir. 2001) (SSA five‑step sequential evaluation process)
- Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 1995) (ALJ bears responsibility for RFC determination)
- Cook v. Heckler, 750 F.2d 391 (5th Cir. 1985) (courts must not reweigh evidence or retry facts)
- Patton v. Schweiker, 697 F.2d 590 (5th Cir. 1983) (resolution of evidentiary conflicts is for the Commissioner)