Wells v. Astrue
727 F.3d 1061
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Ms. Wells filed multiple disability/SSI applications (1994, 2000, 2002); proceedings were consolidated and remanded repeatedly; the ALJ decision on review is from November 16, 2009.
- ALJ divided analysis into two time periods: Oct 31, 1999–Dec 31, 2004 (found multiple severe physical impairments; mental impairments non-severe; RFC = full range of light work) and post–Dec 31, 2005 (added cardiac events as severe; mental impairments again non-severe; RFC = sedentary work).
- At step two the ALJ rated Wells’ mental impairments (anxiety, affective disorder) as causing only mild limitations in three functional areas and none in the fourth, concluding they were non-severe.
- The ALJ stated those non-severity findings produced no further RFC limits, but discussed mental functioning cursorily in the credibility/RFC narrative; the court found parts of that discussion unsupported or based on stale/misstated evidence.
- The ALJ gave little weight to consultative examiner Dr. Saidi’s restrictive physical assessment and discounted a physician assistant’s (Boatner) severe limitations; the court found the ALJ’s rejection of Saidi’s reaching/handling limits was insufficiently explained and remanded for further evaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly accounted for non-severe mental impairments in RFC | Wells: ALJ failed to meaningfully assess mental RFC at step 4 and omitted mental limits despite medical opinions showing greater restrictions | Commissioner: Non-severe finding obviated additional mental restrictions in RFC | Remanded: ALJ cannot rely on step‑2 non-severity alone; must perform a detailed RFC mental assessment with narrative support; existing step‑4 findings unsupported by substantial evidence |
| Treatment of medical opinions on mental limitations | Wells: ALJ improperly rejected mental-health opinions and substituted own judgment | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly discounted opinions inconsistent with record | Instructed: ALJ may rely on record but should reconsider whether expert medical assistance or additional evidence is needed when opinions materially conflict with RFC assessment |
| Weight given to Dr. Saidi’s physical RFC (especially reach/handle and ability to sustain an 8‑hour day) | Wells: ALJ erred in discounting Saidi’s limits without adequate reasons; reaching/handling limits would preclude PRW | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably favored Dr. Clark’s review and testimony over Saidi | Remanded in part: ALJ must reevaluate reach/handle limitations and either justify rejection or incorporate them into RFC because VE said they preclude PRW |
| ALJ’s evaluation of past relevant work and sustained work capacity | Wells: ALJ misidentified some PRW, failed phase‑two findings, and didn’t address ability to sustain full‑time work | Commissioner: Bookkeeper PRW is sufficient and ALJ provided adequate VE testimony and RFC discussion | Affirmed in part/subject to remand: Bookkeeper alone supports step‑4 finding under existing RFC; but if RFC changes on remand ALJ may need further phase‑two development and to address sustained work capacity |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir.) (standard for reviewing Commissioner; substantial-evidence review)
- Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir.) (ALJ—not a physician—determines RFC; no direct correspondence required between an RFC and a specific medical opinion)
- Carpenter v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir.) (step‑two errors are harmless when other severe impairments satisfy the step‑two threshold)
- Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir.) (step‑four Winfrey three‑phase framework for evaluating past relevant work)
- Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (2003) (prior job may qualify as past relevant work without showing significant numbers in the national economy)