Saltsgaver v. Astrue
1:12-cv-03039
D. Colo.Aug 26, 2015Background
- Randy Saltsgaver (b.1960) applied for DIB and SSI alleging chronic low‑back pain, cervical problems, right arm numbness, fatigue, and medication side effects; last insured date December 31, 2011.
- Medical record (2004–2011) shows degenerative changes (C3–C4), intermittent lumbar complaints, conservative treatment with medications, mixed imaging (early x‑rays often minimal, later 2011 x‑ray and 2012 MRI showing more degeneration and stenosis).
- Treating providers: Dr. Alan Burnside issued a Med‑9 stating "disabling" fatigue and back pain; PA Jeff McElwain completed Med‑9 and a Medical Source Statement asserting marked limitations (e.g., work ≤4 hours/day, frequent absences).
- Consultative examiner Dr. Eugene Toner (May 2009) noted poor effort, assessed no radiculopathy, and found greater functional capacity (e.g., stand 15 minutes, sit 30 minutes, lift 20 lbs). A state non‑exam physician assessed light work.
- ALJ held a hearing June 16, 2011, discounted treating opinions and parts of claimant’s credibility, found RFC for light work with occasional postural limitations, and denied benefits through June 28, 2011. Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to treating source opinions | Burnside and McElwain reasonably support disabling limitations and ALJ erred in giving them no weight | ALJ properly rejected opinions as conclusory, unsupported by objective findings, inconsistent with record | Court: ALJ permissibly afforded no weight; rejection supported by substantial evidence |
| RFC and function‑by‑function assessment | ALJ failed to account for fatigue, concentration problems, cervical/upper extremity symptoms, medication side effects, and sitting/standing limits | ALJ considered symptom testimony, daily activities, and lack of objective support; limited record on sitting/standing made detailed findings unnecessary | Court: RFC supported by substantial evidence; any omission on sitting/standing harmless given record |
| Credibility of pain/fatigue testimony | ALJ improperly discounted subjective complaints | ALJ relied on inconsistencies with medical records, activities of daily living, sparse objective findings, and lack of treatment for fatigue | Court: ALJ’s credibility findings were closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence |
| Appeals Council refusal to consider 2011 x‑rays and 2012 MRI | New imaging relates back to pre‑decision period and is material to long‑standing impairments | New records concern a later time (including post‑2011 injury) and do not establish conditions before ALJ’s decision; do not warrant reversal | Court: Appeals Council reasonably found the new evidence did not relate to the period on or before the ALJ’s decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir.) (standard for substantial‑evidence review)
- Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Flaherty v. Astrue, 515 F.3d 1067 (10th Cir.) (courts must examine record as a whole, including undercutting evidence)
- Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir.) (treating‑physician opinion framework and factors)
- Drapeau v. Massanari, 255 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir.) (factors for weighing medical opinions)
- Chambers v. Barnhart, 389 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir.) (Appeals Council must consider new evidence that is new, material, and relates to period before ALJ decision)
- Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (U.S.) (harmless‑error doctrine)