625 F. App'x 896
10th Cir.2015Background
- Ms. Smith applied for Social Security disability benefits and SSI in April 2011 with an alleged onset date in March 2007, when she was 28.
- Her past work includes cashier and carhop positions.
- At step two of the five‑step framework, the ALJ found severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine (post surgery), degenerative joint disease of the right knee (post surgery), obesity, and hypertension.
- An affective disorder of depression was found not severe due to only mild functional limitations.
- At step four, the ALJ determined an RFC of light work: lift/carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, stand/walk 6 hours, sit 6 hours, with occasional crouching or kneeling, and credibility found not fully persuasive.
- The Appeals Council denied review; the district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s R&R upholding the Commissioner’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Obesity effect on RFC not properly analyzed | Smith argues obesity should yield greater functional limits. | Commissioner contends the ALJ cannot assume extra limitations from obesity and must base RFC on record evidence. | ALJ's obesity considerations and RFC were supported by substantial evidence and SSR 02-1p compliance. |
| Credibility of claimed disabling pain | Smith contends the ALJ erred in discounting disabling back/knee pain. | ALJ properly evaluated pain under SSA framework and relied on objective evidence and daily activities. | Credibility determination linked to substantial evidence; no reversible error. |
| Depression/affective disorder not properly preserved on appeal | Smith argued depression analysis; objections were specific and preserved. | Smith waived the depression issue by failing to raise specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report. | Depression issue waived; not preserved for appellate review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for SSA disability decisions; substantial evidence requirement)
- Casias v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799 (10th Cir. 1991) (do not reweigh evidence; defer to agency findings)
- Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387 (10th Cir. 1995) (credibility determinations must be linked to substantial evidence)
- Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368 (10th Cir. 2000) (ALJ must set forth specific evidence supporting credibility findings)
- Berna v. Chater, 101 F.3d 631 (10th Cir. 1996) (waiver principles apply to Social Security appeals)
- Soliz v. Chater, 82 F.3d 373 (10th Cir. 1996) (timeliness and specificity required for objections to R&R; waiver of issues without specific objections)