Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06078/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06078-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

TERESA KEARNS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 15-6078 

(D.C. No. 5:14-CV-00394-M) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, GORSUCH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denied Teresa 

Kearns’s application for disability insurance benefits (DIB). The district court 

affirmed the denial, and Ms. Kearns appeals. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), we affirm. 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It 

may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

December 10, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-6078 Document: 01019537310 Date Filed: 12/10/2015 Page: 1 
2 

I. Background 

When she was thirty-eight years old, Ms. Kearns applied for DIB based on 

post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), bipolar disorder, severe anxiety and 

depression, and panic attacks. The Commissioner denied her application for benefits, 

both on initial consideration and reconsideration. Ms. Kearns then appeared at a 

hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) in September 2012, where she was 

represented by counsel. Ms. Kearns testified, as did a vocational expert (VE). The 

ALJ concluded that Ms. Kearns was not disabled during the relevant time period. 

In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ applied the familiar five-step sequential 

evaluation process used to assess social security claims, see 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4): 

 At step one, the ALJ determined Ms. Kearns had not engaged in substantial 

gainful activity from her alleged onset date (August 2, 2010) through her 

date last insured (June 30, 2012). 

 At step two, the ALJ determined Ms. Kearns had several severe 

impairments: status post ankle fracture, obesity, bipolar I disorder, PTSD, 

and borderline personality. 

 At step three, the ALJ considered Ms. Kearns’s back and ankle pain, 

obesity, and mental impairments and determined she did not have an 

impairment (or combination of impairments) that met or was medically 

equal to an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, 

so as to be per se disabling. 

 At step four, the ALJ determined Ms. Kearns had the residual functional 

capacity (RFC) to perform a limited range of light work: 

[T]he claimant was able to occasionally stoop, kneel, and crouch. The 

claimant is able to interact appropriately on a superficial work basis 

with coworkers and supervisors, but cannot interact with the general 

public. The claimant was able to understand, remember, and follow 

Appellate Case: 15-6078 Document: 01019537310 Date Filed: 12/10/2015 Page: 2 
3 

simple routine instructions and had concentration capability necessary 

to perform unskilled work with the specific vocational profile level of 

two. 

Aplt. App., Vol. I at 40. The ALJ also found that Ms. Kearns was not able 

to perform her past relevant work as a home healthcare aide, personal-care 

attendant, cashier/checker, teacher aide, habilitation specialist, or cook 

helper. 

 At step five, the ALJ considered Ms. Kearns’s age (then forty years old), 

high school education, work experience, and RFC and found that she could 

perform jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy—

including the jobs of night cleaner, packing-line worker, and 

small-products assembler. Therefore, Ms. Kearns was not disabled within 

the meaning of the Social Security Act and was not entitled to benefits. 

The Appeals Council denied Ms. Kearns’s request for review, and the district 

court affirmed, adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 

Ms. Kearns now brings this timely appeal. 

II. Discussion 

Ms. Kearns asserts the ALJ erred in four ways: (1) the RFC and the 

hypothetical question posed to the VE were inadequate because they did not account 

for work-related mental limitations, and besides the jobs suggested by the VE involve 

detailed work and thus do not fit the hypothetical question; (2) the ALJ did not 

discuss the low Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores that Ms. Kearns was 

assigned throughout her treatment or the weight he gave those scores; (3) the ALJ 

gave significant weight to an agency doctor’s opinion that had become stale, without 

analyzing it in the context of the entire evidence; and (4) the ALJ’s credibility 

analysis was flawed. 

Appellate Case: 15-6078 Document: 01019537310 Date Filed: 12/10/2015 Page: 3 
4 

As explained below, Ms. Kearns failed to preserve the first and fourth issues 

for appeal. For the second and third issues, our task is limited to determining 

whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s factual findings and whether the 

agency applied the correct legal standards. Barnett v. Apfel, 231 F.3d 687, 689 

(10th Cir. 2000). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable 

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks omitted). We cannot “reweigh the evidence” or “substitute our judgment for 

that of the agency.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

A. Mental Limitations and Unskilled Work 

We begin with Ms. Kearns’s argument that the RFC and the hypothetical 

question posed to the VE were deficient because a limitation to “unskilled work” 

does not account for her work-related mental limitations—namely, her bipolar I 

disorder, PTSD, and borderline personality, which were identified as severe 

impairments at step two. Ms. Kearns conflates the RFC’s reference to her ability to 

“follow simple routine instructions” with the limitation to “unskilled work,” Aplt. 

App., Vol. I at 40, and inaccurately characterizes the RFC as a limitation to “simple 

work,” e.g., Aplt. Principal Br. at 6, 9. Nevertheless, we understand her point to be 

that an ALJ cannot speak solely in terms of skill level in his RFC and hypothetical 

question to the VE because “if [the claimant’s] mental impairments are affecting her, 

it will not matter how much skill is required in her specific job—her mental 

impairments will prevent any work,” id. at 7. 

Appellate Case: 15-6078 Document: 01019537310 Date Filed: 12/10/2015 Page: 4 
5 

We agree with the Commissioner that Ms. Kearns waived this argument 

because it was absent from her initial brief to the district court and first surfaced in 

her objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. “In this circuit, 

theories raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge’s report are 

deemed waived.” United States v. Garfinkle, 261 F.3d 1030, 1031 (10th Cir. 2001).1

 

Of course, an argument that was never raised before the district court is also waived. 

Wilburn v. Mid-South Health Dev., Inc., 343 F.3d 1274, 1280 (10th Cir. 2003). This 

is the case with Ms. Kearns’s newly presented argument that the jobs suggested by 

the VE do not fit the hypothetical question because they involve detailed work. 

 1

 Ms. Kearns attempts to avert waiver through two alternative contentions, 

neither of which has merit. See Aplt. Reply Br. at 1–3. First, she asserts this issue 

was encompassed within her argument to the district court that the RFC did not 

contain sufficiently specific terms. See Aplt. App., Vol. III at 591–92. But there, 

Ms. Kearns critiqued the ALJ’s use of the word “superficial” in describing her 

“ability to interact appropriately on a superficial work basis with coworkers and 

supervisors”—an entirely separate issue from an ALJ’s ability or inability to 

adequately address a claimant’s mental impairments through a limitation to unskilled 

work. Second, Ms. Kearns argues it was temporally impossible to present this issue 

in the initial brief to the district court because her position stems from our 

unpublished opinion in Jaramillo v. Colvin, 576 F. App’x 870 (10th Cir. 2014), 

which was released shortly after she filed that initial brief. But the citations in her 

appellate briefs date back to 1996, demonstrating that Jaramillo was not the first 

word on this issue. E.g., Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2012); Wayland 

v. Chater, 76 F.3d 394 (10th Cir. 1996) (unpublished table decision). The same is 

true for Ms. Kearns’s parallel argument that the hypothetical question posed to the 

VE was deficient, an issue we also discussed in Chapo, 682 F.3d at 1290 & n.3. And 

Ms. Kearns again cites decades-old cases in support of her position. E.g., Evans v. 

Chater, 55 F.3d 530 (10th Cir. 1995); Hargis v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir. 

1991). 

Appellate Case: 15-6078 Document: 01019537310 Date Filed: 12/10/2015 Page: 5 
6 

B. GAF Scores 

We turn next to Ms. Kearns’s argument that the ALJ did not discuss or weigh 

certain low GAF scores in his RFC assessment, and that these scores are at odds with 

the final determination on Ms. Kearns’s ability to work: 

 a score of 50 during outpatient treatment at Mental Health Services of 

Southern Oklahoma on April 6, 2011, Aplt. App., Vol. III at 507; 

 a score of 25 upon admission to Carl Albert Mental Health Center on 

April 12, 2012, and a past score of 45 noted on the admission form, id. at 

554; and 

 a score of 30 upon admission to Griffin Memorial Hospital on June 5, 2012, 

id. at 568. 

Ms. Kearns does not mention two other GAF scores she received: (1) a score of 

75-80 during a consultative examination by psychiatrist Adonis Al-Botros, M.D., on 

January 31, 2011, see id., Vol. II at 376, which is recounted in the ALJ’s analysis, 

see id., Vol. I at 41; and (2) a score of 52 upon release from Griffin Memorial 

Hospital on July 24, 2012 (up from 30 at intake), see id., Vol. III at 571. 

Our analysis necessarily begins with a brief explanation of GAF scores and 

what they signify. “The GAF is a 100-point scale divided into ten numerical ranges, 

which permits clinicians to assign a single ranged score to a person’s psychological, 

social, and occupational functioning.” Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1162 

n.1 (10th Cir. 2012). Its purpose is to allow clinicians to plan treatment, measure its 

Appellate Case: 15-6078 Document: 01019537310 Date Filed: 12/10/2015 Page: 6 
7 

impact, and predict the outcome. Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Diagnostic & Statistical 

Manual of Mental Disorders 32 (4th ed. Text Revision 2000).2

 

It is true that the ALJ did not expressly recite or reconcile Ms. Kearns’s lower 

GAF scores, but that omission does not constitute error or take away from the 

substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision. While “[t]he record must 

demonstrate that the ALJ considered all of the evidence, . . . an ALJ is not required to 

discuss every piece of evidence.” Mays v. Colvin, 739 F.3d 569, 576 (10th Cir. 2014) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). An ALJ’s failure to conduct a comparative 

analysis and weigh conflicting GAF evidence does not mandate reversal. 

Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1164. “While a GAF score may be of considerable help 

to the ALJ in formulating the RFC, it is not essential to the RFC’s accuracy.” 

Howard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235, 241 (6th Cir. 2002). 

In any event, it is obvious the ALJ considered the medical records that 

contained the GAF scores. At step four, he provided details on Ms. Kearns’s 

outpatient treatment at Mental Health Services of Southern Oklahoma in 2011, as 

well as her inpatient care at Carl Albert and at Griffin Memorial Hospital in 2012—

details that paraphrased those treatment records. See Aplt. App., Vol. I at 41–42. 

The GAF scores were only one component of those records, and the ALJ’s discussion 

 2

 In the most recent edition of the manual, the American Psychiatric 

Association dropped the GAF scale “for several reasons, including its conceptual 

lack of clarity (i.e., including symptoms, suicide risk, and disabilities in its 

descriptors) and questionable psychometrics in routine practice.” Am. Psychiatric 

Ass’n, Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 16 (5th ed. 2013). 

Appellate Case: 15-6078 Document: 01019537310 Date Filed: 12/10/2015 Page: 7 
8 

of the records accurately described the overarching evidence of Ms. Kearns’s 

improved mental state when she was compliant with her prescribed medications, her 

stable condition upon release from treatment, and the “positive future projection” for 

her mental health, id. at 42. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, and 

his failure to specifically discuss all of the GAF scores was not fatal. 

C. Agency Doctor’s Opinion 

Ms. Kearns also faults the ALJ for giving significant weight to the “stale” 

opinion of an agency doctor without analyzing it in the context of the entire medical 

evidence, which shows a decline in mental health in 2012. We deduce that she 

critiques the ALJ’s reliance on the Psychiatric Review Technique (PRT) and Mental 

Residual Functional Capacity Assessment (MRFCA) performed by Joan Holloway, 

Ph.D., a non-examining state-agency psychologist.3

 

Here too we discern no error. The ALJ followed the mandate in 

Keyes-Zachary: “It is the ALJ’s duty to give consideration to all the medical 

opinions in the record. He must also discuss the weight he assigns to such opinions.” 

 3

 In Section I of the MRFCA (“Summary Conclusions”), Dr. Holloway 

checked boxes indicating that Ms. Kearns was “[m]arkedly [l]imited” in “[t]he ability 

to understand and remember detailed instructions,” “[t]he ability to carry out detailed 

instructions,” and “[t]he ability to interact appropriately with the general public.” 

Aplt. App., Vol. II at 392–93. She found no significant limitations in the remaining 

categories. In Section III (“Functional Capacity Assessment”), Dr. Holloway 

explained that Ms. Kearns “can perform simple tasks with routine supervision,” “can 

relate to supervisors and peers on a superficial work basis,” “cannot relate to the 

general public,” and “can adapt to a work situation.” Id. at 394. A second 

non-examining state-agency psychologist, Sharon Taber, Ph.D., affirmed the findings 

and assessments in the MRFCA, as well as the PRT, on reconsideration. 

Appellate Case: 15-6078 Document: 01019537310 Date Filed: 12/10/2015 Page: 8 
9 

695 F.3d at 1161 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), (e)(2)(ii), 416.927(c), (e)(2)(ii)). 

In addition to the opinion by Dr. Holloway, which was affirmed by Dr. Taber on 

reconsideration, the ALJ considered: 

 a March 23, 2011, case analysis by a state-agency physician, Janet G. 

Rodgers, M.D., finding no evidence of severe physical impairments, which 

was affirmed in an August 15, 2011, case analysis by a second state-agency 

physician, Luther Woodcock, M.D. (which the ALJ gave “strong weight 

and consideration”), Aplt. App., Vol. I at 44; 

 three unidentified checklist forms dated July 13, 2010, November 5, 2010, 

and February 17, 2011, which were completed in connection with an 

application for social services from the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

(which the ALJ gave “minimal weight or consideration”), id. at 44–45; 

 an April 14, 2011, letter from Don Bruce Chesler, M.D., which Ms. Kearns 

procured to defend against felony-assault charges for striking a police 

officer (which the ALJ gave “minimal weight or consideration”), id. at 45; 

and 

 a September 13, 2010, “third party adult function report” completed by 

Ms. Kearns’s father, which the ALJ deemed to be of questionable accuracy 

and “simply not consistent with the preponderance of the opinions and 

observations by medical doctors in this case,” id. 

The ALJ’s discussion of this opinion evidence was preceded by a thorough 

recitation of the medical evidence, including records documenting panic attacks in 

2010; the examination by Dr. Al-Botros on January 31, 2011; regular visits to Public 

Indian Health Clinics in 2011; outpatient care with Mental Health Services of 

Southern Oklahoma in 2011; emergency treatment and inpatient care at Carl Albert in 

April and May 2012; and inpatient care at Griffin Memorial Hospital in June and July 

2012. See id. at 40–43. 

Appellate Case: 15-6078 Document: 01019537310 Date Filed: 12/10/2015 Page: 9 
10 

Not only did the ALJ examine the medical opinions in the context of 

Ms. Kearns’s medical history, he also devoted extensive attention to the 2012 

incidents—when Ms. Kearns was admitted to Carl Albert after taking too many pills 

within a short period and to Griffin Memorial Hospital following an overdose. In 

particular, he outlined the progress she made during treatment. When Ms. Kearns 

left Carl Albert, for instance, she “was stabilized on medications with reported 

improvement”; she had “attended and interacted well in her group sessions”; she 

“was alert and oriented with intact memory, normal concentration, and intact 

judgment” upon discharge; “she was sleeping well with good appetite [and] 

compliant upon her medications without any side effects”; and “she was utilizing 

effective coping skills.” Id. at 42. Similarly, at Griffin Memorial Hospital, she 

“stabilized and improved upon her modified medications” and was “discharged as 

stable” with a mental health treatment plan. Id. 

The ALJ carefully considered all of the medical evidence in formulating an 

RFC that addressed Ms. Kearns’s mental impairments. Just because his assessment 

was similar to the medical opinions of Drs. Holloway and Taber does not mean that it 

was based solely on stale evidence. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s 

decision. 

D. Credibility Analysis 

The final argument is that the ALJ did not perform a proper credibility analysis 

in rejecting Ms. Kearns’s subjective complaints of pain and limitation because he 

used boilerplate language and did not analyze the objective medical evidence. We do 

Appellate Case: 15-6078 Document: 01019537310 Date Filed: 12/10/2015 Page: 10 
11 

not reach the merits of this argument because it was not properly preserved for 

appeal. 

To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must object to the magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation in a way “that is sufficiently specific to focus the 

district court’s attention on the factual and legal issues that are truly in dispute.” 

United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Although 

Ms. Kearns complained about the ALJ’s credibility analysis in her opening brief to 

the district court, she did not make a specific objection to the magistrate judge’s 

subsequent finding that the ALJ’s credibility determination was “well supported by 

the record,” Aplt. App., Vol. III at 615. Indeed, she ignored this issue entirely. She 

therefore waived appellate review of this determination under this court’s firm 

waiver rule. See Port City Props. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 518 F.3d 1186, 1190 n.1 

(10th Cir. 2008) (deeming issue waived where appellant failed to raise it in his 

objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). 

III. Conclusion 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Carolyn B. McHugh 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-6078 Document: 01019537310 Date Filed: 12/10/2015 Page: 11