Watson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
5:16-cv-04155
D. Kan.Nov 17, 2017Background
- Doris M. Watson applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability beginning August 23, 2012; the ALJ denied benefits and the Commissioner’s decision was appealed to district court.
- At a hearing Watson testified the VA had increased her service-connected rating to 100% for PTSD (effective March 20, 2014); she later submitted some VA documentation to the Appeals Council.
- The ALJ considered and discussed extensive VA treatment records in his decision, found PTSD a severe impairment, assessed an RFC denying disability under the Social Security Act, and noted credibility concerns about Watson’s attendance in a VA vocational program.
- Watson argued the ALJ and Appeals Council failed to properly consider and explain the VA 100% disability rating and that the ALJ failed to assess her ability to sustain work on a regular and continuing basis.
- The Appeals Council added the VA rating documents to the administrative record but denied review, stating the new evidence did not warrant changing the ALJ’s decision.
- The district court conducted a substantial-evidence review of the full record (including evidence submitted to the Appeals Council) and affirmed the Commissioner, finding no reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ / Appeals Council failed to consider or explain the VA 100% disability rating | Watson: ALJ and Appeals Council did not discuss or weigh the VA 100% PTSD rating as required (per SSR 06-03p / Grogan), so remand is required. | Commissioner: ALJ said he considered all evidence; any omission is harmless because VA standards differ from SSA standards and ALJ considered the underlying VA records and PTSD. Appeals Council not required to explain new evidence when denying review (Vallejo). | Court: No reversible error. ALJ had VA records and discussed PTSD; plaintiff’s hearing testimony and submitted VA paperwork to Appeals Council did not compel a different result. Any omission was harmless; Appeals Council properly denied review and court reviewed whole record. |
| Whether ALJ failed to assess ability to sustain work on a regular and continuing basis (RFC) | Watson: ALJ ignored or improperly rejected evidence about her inability to sustain work (esp. poor attendance and pain during VA vocational rehab), so RFC lacks a sustained-work finding. | Commissioner: ALJ considered the vocational-program evidence, explained credibility concerns, defined RFC as ability to perform work on a sustained basis, and need not use a talismanic phrase. | Court: No error. ALJ’s evaluation of the IT program was supported by substantial evidence and he applied the RFC definition; remand not required absent a showing ALJ ignored material evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grogan v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2005) (ALJ must consider and explain weight given another agency’s disability determination)
- Vallejo v. Berryhill, 849 F.3d 951 (10th Cir. 2017) (Appeals Council not required to explain new evidence when it denies review; district court must review whole record)
- Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007) (substantial-evidence standard and deference to agency factfinding)
- Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2012) (courts should apply common sense and need not insist on technical perfection in ALJ proceedings)