Watts v. Berryhill
705 F. App'x 759
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Karen Watts, age 51, applied for Social Security disability and SSI alleging bipolar disorder, depression, prior back surgery, and knee injury; ALJ found severe mental impairments but not disabling.
- ALJ assessed an RFC for a reduced range of light work with limits to brief/superficial public contact and avoidance of certain hazards; vocational expert identified available unskilled jobs (e.g., cleaner, office helper).
- ALJ acknowledged long history of psychiatric treatment and GAF scores from treating providers but gave little weight to GAF scores and gave no weight to a treating provider’s opinion that Watts was unable to work.
- Watts argued the ALJ failed to discuss treating-provider opinions relevant to bipolar disorder and improperly discounted her subjective symptom statements.
- The Appeals Council denied review; the magistrate judge affirmed; the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the ALJ applied correct legal standards and whether findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to discuss treating-physician evidence in RFC | Watts: ALJ failed to discuss opinions/GAFs from long-term treating providers and other clinicians relevant to bipolar disorder | Commissioner: ALJ considered the record, properly discounted GAFs and treating opinions when not inconsistent with medical evidence; ALJ need not discuss every item | Affirmed — no error: ALJ relied on record, no treating opinion imposed greater limitations than RFC, so detailed weighing unnecessary |
| Weight given to GAF scores | Watts: ALJ erred in giving little weight to GAF scores (e.g., 45–55) | Commissioner: GAF fluctuates, is subjective, and SSA/DSM de-emphasize GAF for disability criteria | Affirmed — ALJ provided valid reasons for discounting GAFs; no reversible error |
| Credibility of subjective complaints | Watts: ALJ relied on boilerplate/minimal ADL findings and failed to consider treatment compliance, side effects, and frequency of therapy | Commissioner: ALJ considered relevant factors (ADLs, treatment attempts, medication compliance/effects) and linked findings to evidence | Affirmed — credibility determination supported by substantial evidence and adequately linked to record |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir.) (standard of review and substantial-evidence review)
- Howard v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 945 (10th Cir. 2004) (ALJ, not a physician, determines RFC)
- Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009) (deference to ALJ statement of having considered the record)
- Mays v. Colvin, 739 F.3d 569 (10th Cir. 2014) (no requirement to discuss every piece of evidence)
- Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2012) (RFC consistency with opinion reduces need for further analysis)
- Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2004) (GAF explanation and treating-physician-weighting requirement)
- Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368 (10th Cir. 2000) (ALJ must set forth specific evidence relied on in credibility findings)
- Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387 (10th Cir. 1995) (credibility findings must be closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence)