674 F. App'x 816
10th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Jason Winnick applied for Social Security disability and SSI in 2007 alleging lumbar/back and mental impairments; after multiple ALJ decisions and Appeals Council remands, an ALJ issued a de novo decision in Feb. 2013 denying benefits and the Appeals Council denied review.
- The ALJ found severe impairments: lumbar disc disease (post-laminectomy), bipolar disorder, and anxiety; concluded impairments did not meet/equal listings and assigned an RFC for light work with limitations; relied on VE testimony to find jobs available.
- Winnick appealed pro se, raising nine issues including alleged misweighing of treating/examining opinions, improper treatment of VA disability rating, errors about spinal stenosis and educational impact, and requests for remand or immediate benefits.
- The Commissioner defended the ALJ’s weighing of evidence and the conclusion that the VA rating was not binding; conceded one error (mischaracterizing Dr. Ganzell as examining, not treating).
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and legal error, remanded for further proceedings because the ALJ erred in his analysis of treating-physician opinion(s) and insufficiently explained his treatment of the VA rating; denied other relief requests.
Issues
| Issue | Winnick's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ mischaracterized/treating-physician weight (Dr. Ganzell) | ALJ ignored treating relationship and undervalued Ganzell’s opinion that Winnick cannot sustain employment | Commissioner conceded ALJ mischaracterized Ganzell as examining; argued error harmless because ALJ gave reasons to discount opinion | Court: Error not harmless; remand required for proper treating-source analysis and weighing factors |
| Weight given to Dr. Tran’s back assessment | Tran said back had a "severe" effect on daily activities; Winnick contends ALJ undervalued this and should tie it to work limitations/education impact | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably gave "some weight" because Tran lacked specifics about what activities were limited | Court: Agreed ALJ reasonably discounted unspecified ‘‘severe’’ finding but instructed ALJ to reconsider Tran’s opinion and explain weight and implications for education/work on remand |
| Consideration of VA 100% disability rating | Winnick: VA rating shows disability and ALJ failed to explain rejection | Commissioner: VA determinations not binding on SSA and ALJ considered VA findings | Court: VA decision is relevant evidence; ALJ’s cursory treatment was inadequate—must explain why VA rating is unpersuasive and how VA findings were factored into RFC |
| Request for remand for new evidence (sentence six) and for immediate award of benefits | Winnick sought remand to consider new medical evidence and alternatively immediate benefits | Commissioner: Administrative remand appropriate; new evidence not before ALJ/Appeals Council | Court: Denied sentence-six remand request at this stage and refused to consider new evidence; declined to order immediate benefits — remand for further administrative factfinding instead |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2010) (standard of review and substantial-evidence review)
- Mays v. Colvin, 739 F.3d 569 (10th Cir. 2014) (treating-physician analysis and required deference/weighing factors)
- Grogan v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2005) (another agency’s disability determination is relevant evidence that ALJ must consider and explain why unpersuasive)
- Salazar v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 615 (10th Cir. 2006) (factors for deciding whether to award benefits on appeal rather than remanding)