White v. Berryhill
704 F. App'x 774
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Donna White applied for Social Security disability benefits; an ALJ denied benefits, the Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed on appeal.
- At the administrative hearing, the ALJ found multiple severe impairments including cervical degenerative disc disease with fusions, bilateral carpal tunnel (post right release), COPD, diabetes, obesity, and several mental disorders (adjustment disorder, PTSD, panic disorder).
- The ALJ concluded White did not meet or equal a listing, could not perform past relevant work, but had an RFC for a limited range of light work restricted to simple, repetitive tasks and avoiding work above shoulder level.
- The ALJ relied on consultative examiners, state agency reviewers, and VE testimony to identify available jobs consistent with the RFC; the VE identified jobs existing in significant numbers.
- White raised three appeals: (1) the ALJ’s evaluation and weighting of mental-health evidence; (2) credibility of her symptom testimony; and (3) whether the RFC adequately accounted for neck limitations. The court rejected all three challenges and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | White's Argument | Agency's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of mental‑limitations evaluation / weight to examiners | ALJ mischaracterized Dr. Paris and failed to account for below‑average ability to handle work stress; improperly discounted Dr. Kent’s opinion that PTSD/panic prevent concentration on simple tasks | ALJ’s wording did not change meaning; state psychological reviewers supported RFC limiting to simple, routine tasks; ALJ gave specific, legitimate reasons for discounting Dr. Kent (internal inconsistency and daily activities) | Affirmed — RFC limiting to simple, repetitive tasks reasonably accommodated mental limits; ALJ gave adequate reasons for discounting Dr. Kent and relied on other expert opinions |
| Credibility of symptoms | ALJ erred in discounting White’s testimony about disabling pain and stress; misread or ignored treatment records and relied unduly on counselor’s comment | ALJ’s credibility finding was linked to substantial evidence: gaps/limited treatment, inconsistent adherence to meds/lifestyle, examiner’s poor effort, counselor’s notes, and daily activities; post‑DLI evidence may be considered | Affirmed — credibility determination supported by substantial evidence and not subject to reweighing |
| RFC and neck restrictions / VE hypotheticals | RFC failed to capture limitations in looking down/around and worsening with repeated movement; exam findings showed limited neck flexion/rotation that were not fully incorporated into RFC or VE hypotheticals | ALJ considered neck reports (Wiegman, Mayoza, Gourd) and included supported neck limitations (avoid above‑shoulder work); differences among exam findings go to weight, not omission; VE was posed hypotheticals reflecting ALJ’s assessed limitations | Affirmed — RFC and VE hypotheticals included the credible, supported neck limitations; ALJ’s assessment supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009) (explaining the five‑step disability evaluation)
- Smith v. Colvin, 821 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2016) (RFC limiting simple tasks can accommodate moderate limitations in concentration and social interaction)
- Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2010) (credibility findings must be closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence)
- Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2012) (ALJ must give specific, legitimate reasons to reject an examining physician’s opinion)
- Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007) (reviewing court will not displace agency’s choice between conflicting evidence)
- Jensen v. Barnhart, 436 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2006) (ALJ may rely on VE testimony to identify suitable jobs)
- Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758 (10th Cir. 2003) (use of VE testimony at step four can support ALJ findings)
- Keyes‑Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2012) (ALJ may consider treatment history when assessing credibility)
- Blea v. Barnhart, 466 F.3d 903 (10th Cir. 2006) (medical evidence after the date‑last‑insured may be relevant to the insured period)
- Hardman v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 676 (10th Cir. 2004) (post‑DLI medical evidence may be material to conditions existing before DLI)
- Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 2011) (ALJ may pose claimant’s limitations to VE and ask whether jobs exist in the economy)