Sobczak v. Social Security Administration
1:16-cv-00968
D.N.M.Dec 20, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jori Ann Sobczak applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability beginning July 3, 2014, due to back problems, fibromyalgia, PTSD, depression, and slipped discs; applications were denied administratively and on reconsideration.
- ALJ held a hearing (Jan. 1, 2016) and issued an unfavorable decision (Mar. 10, 2016); Appeals Council denied review and Plaintiff sought district court review.
- ALJ found severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, obesity, fibromyalgia, PTSD, and depression; assessed an RFC for less than a full range of light work with specific postural, manipulative, and simple-work limitations.
- ALJ relied on vocational expert testimony to find jobs in the national economy Plaintiff could perform; ALJ concluded Plaintiff was not disabled at step five.
- Plaintiff challenged the RFC, the ALJ’s evaluation of medical evidence (including treating/examining sources and obesity/hand complaints), symptom credibility findings, and an apparent conflict between the VE testimony and DOT reasoning levels.
- Magistrate Judge Khalsa granted Plaintiff’s motion to reverse and remand, finding the RFC unsupported by substantial evidence and the ALJ failed to resolve an apparent VE/DOT conflict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFC unsupported by evidence | ALJ failed to provide a narrative tying medical and nonmedical evidence to RFC; ignored or minimized probative records (pain, limited ROM, hand symptoms, 2014 ABQ records). | ALJ provided a reasonable summary and analysis supporting the RFC. | RFC not supported: ALJ’s narrative was inadequate and omitted/discounted conflicting probative evidence, requiring remand. |
| Failure to consider obesity effects | ALJ recognized obesity but did not explain how obesity and its combined effects with other impairments were considered in the RFC. | Implicitly relied on consideration at step two; did not address as error. | Error: ALJ failed to explain how obesity (BMI>40) affected functional limitations and combined effects, so remand required. |
| Evaluation of hand complaints and related diagnoses | ALJ said no significant handling limitations and selectively summarized records, omitting evidence of bilateral hand pain, Raynaud’s, swelling and numbness. | ALJ’s summary sufficed; these records were not inconsistent with RFC. | Held that ALJ improperly excluded probative hand-related evidence; RFC unsupported. |
| VE/DOT conflict on reasoning level | Limitation to "simple, work-related decisions" conflicts with DOT reasoning levels (level 3) for jobs VE identified; ALJ failed to investigate/resolve conflict. | Reasoning levels reflect GED (education), not mental job demands; VE jobs were unskilled so no conflict; any error was harmless because one job had compatible reasoning. | ALJ erred by not resolving the apparent conflict; remand required (court declined to find harmless error). |
Key Cases Cited
- Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir.) (describes three-phase step-four analysis and RFC role)
- Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir.) (court will not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the Commissioner)
- Howard v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 945 (10th Cir.) (ALJ should include reasoning for RFC findings to permit meaningful review)
- Haddock v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir.) (ALJ must investigate and elicit reasonable explanation for conflicts between VE testimony and DOT)
- Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir.) (apparent conflict between limitation to simple tasks and DOT level-three reasoning requires remand)
- Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir.) (distinguishes skill level from general mental requirements; unskilled jobs do not necessarily address mental limitations)
- Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729 (10th Cir.) (outlines disability determination framework)
- Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir.) (court will not find harmless error based on one properly identified job without ALJ assessment of significant-number issue)