Smith v. Colvin
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8505
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Laurie Smith applied for Social Security disability benefits, alleging left shoulder impingement, limitations in reaching/handling/fingering, and moderate nonexertional (mental) limitations.
- ALJ found other severe impairments at step two, evaluated RFC, and concluded Smith could perform sedentary jobs (telequotation clerk, surveillance systems monitor, call-out operator); denied benefits.
- The district court affirmed the ALJ; Smith appealed to the Tenth Circuit challenging several aspects of the ALJ’s evaluation of medical opinions and limitations.
- Key medical evidence included an examination by Dr. Kelly Common (limits on lifting/carrying, need for breaks, restrictions on fingering/handling) and a consultative review by Dr. Gayle Frommelt (moderate mental limitations affecting concentration, social interaction, and pace).
- The ALJ: (a) did not list left shoulder impingement as a separate severe impairment at step two but proceeded to assess RFC; (b) interpreted Dr. Common’s break/lift limitations in a way consistent with other records and claimant testimony; (c) adopted a middle-ground handling/fingering restriction between two medical opinions; (d) limited work to simple, repetitive tasks and no public-facing duties to account for moderate nonexertional limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step-two omission of left shoulder impingement | ALJ erred by not listing left shoulder impingement as a severe impairment | Any omission is harmless because ALJ found other severe impairments and proceeded to RFC | Harmless error — RFC considered shoulder limitations and outcome unaffected |
| Weight given to Dr. Common re: breaks and lift/carry | Dr. Common required half-hour breaks and <10 lb lifting — ALJ failed to account for these | ALJ permissibly read breaks as needed only after prolonged standing/walking; ALJ’s 10-lb RFC matches record/testimony | No error — ALJ’s interpretation permissible and consistent with RFC/testimony |
| Handling/fingering limitations | ALJ should have adopted Dr. Common’s occasional/repetitive restrictions | Conflicting opinion (Dr. McElhinney) found no restrictions; ALJ may adopt a reasonable middle ground | No error — ALJ reasonably adopted a frequent handling/fingering limitation between opinions |
| Moderate nonexertional (mental) limitations | ALJ failed to translate Dr. Frommelt’s moderate limitations into RFC | ALJ accounted for limits by restricting work to simple, routine tasks and no public contact | No error — ALJ’s RFC incorporated moderate limitations by limiting complexity and social contact |
Key Cases Cited
- Blea v. Barnhart, 466 F.3d 903 (10th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for social security appeals)
- Newbold v. Colvin, 718 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2013) (court may not reweigh evidence; substantial-evidence standard)
- Mays v. Colvin, 739 F.3d 569 (10th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must apply correct legal standards and have substantial evidence)
- Allman v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 1326 (10th Cir. 2016) (failure to find a specific impairment severe at step two is harmless if at least one severe impairment is found and RFC is assessed)
- Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2012) (ALJ may adopt a middle-ground resolution between conflicting medical opinions)
- Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 1995) (ALJ need only present vocational expert with limitations the ALJ actually finds)
- Vigil v. Colvin, 805 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2015) (ALJ may account for moderate concentration/pace problems by limiting claimant to unskilled/simple work)