Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01498/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01498-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolyn W. Colvin
Appellee
Belma Jazvin
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

BELMA JAZVIN, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of the Social Security 

Administration, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 15-1498 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-02750-MEH) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, McKAY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Belma Jazvin appeals a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security 

denying her application for benefits. We affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Ms. Jazvin came to the United States in 1995 as a refugee from the Bosnian 

war. She was employed until 2011, when she lost her job at a 7-Eleven store as part 

of a change in ownership. After a year of receiving unemployment benefits and 

 *

 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 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 

August 24, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1498 Document: 01019676913 Date Filed: 08/24/2016 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

trying unsuccessfully to find a new job, Ms. Jazvin applied for disability insurance 

benefits and supplemental security income. Ms. Jazvin claimed she was unable to 

work because of schizophrenia, complications from medications, dizziness, shakes, 

and vision issues. Following a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied 

Ms. Jazvin’s application. 

 The ALJ followed the five-step disability-determination process. See Wall v. 

Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) (summarizing the five-step process). 

He found that Ms. Jazvin had three severe impairments: schizophrenia, diplopia of 

the right eye, and dizziness. The ALJ determined Ms. Jazvin had the residual 

functional capacity (RFC) to 

perform light work . . . except she is not required to lift and carry more 

than 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. She is not 

required to climb scaffolds, ladders, ropes or balance. She is not 

required to work at unguarded heights or near unguarded hazardous 

mechanical equipment. She is not required to see out of more than one 

eye. She is not required to understand, remember, and carry out more 

than simple instructions. She is not required to have more than 

superficial interaction with the public. 

Aplt. App. Vol. 1 at 21. After considering testimony from a vocational expert (VE), 

the ALJ found Ms. Jazvin was capable of performing her past relevant work as an 

assembler, as well as other jobs that existed in the national economy. He therefore 

concluded Ms. Jazvin was not disabled and denied her application for benefits. The 

appeals council denied review and the district court affirmed.1

 1

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties consented to have a magistrate judge 

conduct all proceedings. 

Appellate Case: 15-1498 Document: 01019676913 Date Filed: 08/24/2016 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

We review the district court’s ruling de novo, independently determining 

whether the ALJ correctly applied the law and whether substantial evidence supports 

his findings. Wall, 561 F.3d at 1052. 

III.ANALYSIS 

Ms. Jazvin argues the ALJ failed to develop an adequate record. Specifically, 

she argues the ALJ was required to (1) order a consultative examination and (2) 

inquire further about the effect of Ms. Jazvin’s mental and physical conditions on her 

daily activities and ability to work. We disagree. 

It is the claimant’s burden to prove she is disabled. Maes v. Astrue, 522 F.3d 

1093, 1096 (10th Cir. 2008). The ALJ must “ensure that an adequate record is 

developed . . . consistent with the issues raised.” Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 

1164 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

A. Consultative Examination 

The ALJ’s duty to develop the record may require ordering a consultative 

examination, but the ALJ “has broad latitude” in determining whether to do so. Id. at 

1166. A consultative examination may be required if there is a direct conflict in the 

medical evidence, the medical evidence is inconclusive, or “additional tests are 

required to explain a diagnosis.” Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1519a(b), 

416.919a(b) (describing situations that may require a consultative examination). But 

there is no need for a consultative examination when the ALJ has enough information 

to make a disability determination. Cowan v. Astrue, 552 F.3d 1182, 1187 (10th Cir. 

Appellate Case: 15-1498 Document: 01019676913 Date Filed: 08/24/2016 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

2008). And if the claimant’s attorney does not request a consultative examination, 

the ALJ has no duty to order one unless the need “is clearly established in the 

record.” Hawkins, 113 F.3d at 1168. 

Ms. Jazvin’s attorney did not request a consultative examination. 

Nevertheless, she argues the record clearly establishes the need for one to explore 

how her mental and physical conditions may affect her ability to work. We conclude 

the ALJ had enough information to make a disability determination. 

The record contains Ms. Jazvin’s medical records from the years before and 

after her alleged onset of disability. Although these records, which the ALJ reviewed 

and accurately summarized, show Ms. Jazvin suffered chronic schizophrenia, they 

also show her symptoms were well controlled with medication. They also detail the 

physical side effects of Ms. Jazvin’s antipsychotic medication—namely, head tilt 

(torticollis), unpredictable muscle movements (dystonia), double vision (diplopia), 

and eyes rolling up (oculogyrate crisis)—as well as the severity of her side effects 

and the measures doctors took to minimize them. 

The ALJ also reviewed a function report Ms. Jazvin completed as part of her 

disability application. The report describes Ms. Jazvin’s symptoms and the side 

effects of her medication. Among other things, Ms. Jazvin complained her 

medication left her dizzy and caused her right eye to roll back, which impaired her 

vision. Ms. Jazvin also claimed she had trouble lifting more than ten pounds, 

concentrating, completing tasks, following instructions, and getting along with 

others. But the report also reveals that Ms. Jazvin lived independently with a 

Appellate Case: 15-1498 Document: 01019676913 Date Filed: 08/24/2016 Page: 4 
- 5 - 

roommate; had no problems caring for her personal hygiene; prepared simple meals 

on a daily basis; and completed household chores like vacuuming, dusting, cleaning, 

laundry, and ironing. Ms. Jazvin went shopping for groceries, paid bills, and used a 

checkbook. For fun, she watched television and movies, read, used the internet, 

tended her flowers, and drove to the mountains on the weekends. 

An agency psychologist reviewed Ms. Jazvin’s records and found that her 

impairments were not severe and did “not significantly limit [her] physical or mental 

ability to do basic work activities.” Aplt. App. Vol. 1 at 71-72. The psychologist 

also opined that Ms. Jazvin had only mild restrictions on her activities of daily living, 

mild difficulties maintaining social functioning, mild difficulties maintaining 

concentration, and no repeated episodes of decompensation.2

In addition to these records, the ALJ considered and weighed Ms. Jazvin’s 

testimony, as well as the testimony of her friends and a vocational expert. The ALJ 

asked Ms. Jazvin about her symptoms, the medications she was taking, and their side 

effects. Two of Ms. Jazvin’s friends testified regarding their observations of her 

mental and physical condition. Finally, the VE testified that someone with 

 2

 The ALJ found the agency psychologist’s opinion persuasive, see 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404.1527(e)(2)(i), 416.927(e)(2)(i) (agency psychologists are highly qualified 

psychologists “who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation”), but the 

ALJ tempered his RFC assessment in Jazvin’s favor by limiting her to light work that 

did not require her to balance. The RFC excluded work near unguarded heights or 

hazardous mechanical equipment and work that would require her to see out of more 

than one eye; lift more than ten pounds frequently; understand, remember, and carry 

out more than simple instructions; or have more than superficial interaction with the 

public. 

Appellate Case: 15-1498 Document: 01019676913 Date Filed: 08/24/2016 Page: 5 
- 6 - 

Ms. Jazvin’s RFC could perform her past work as an assembler, as well as at least 

two other jobs existing in the national economy. 

Taken together, this evidence was sufficient for the ALJ to make a disability 

determination. Ms. Jazvin points to no direct conflict in the medical evidence,3

inconclusive medical evidence, or additional tests needed to explain her diagnoses. 

See Hawkins, 113 F.3d at 1166. Because the record does not clearly establish the 

need for a consultative examination, the ALJ was not required to order one. See id.

at 1168. 

Ms. Jazvin argues that Thompson v. Sullivan, 987 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir. 1993), 

compels a different result. In that case, we concluded the ALJ should have ordered a 

consultative examination because there was “no evidence upon which to make a 

finding as to RFC.” Id. at 1491. But in Thompson—unlike this case—the medical 

records were inconclusive, the hearing lasted only ten minutes, the claimant was the 

only witness and was asked only superficial questions by her attorney, and the ALJ 

did not ask any questions at all. See id. at 1485, 1491. 

B. ALJ’s Inquiry

We also reject Ms. Jazvin’s argument that the ALJ’s questioning was 

inadequate. “The ALJ does not have to exhaust every possible line of inquiry in an 

 3

 To the extent the agency psychologist’s opinion conflicted with the Med-9 

form completed for the Colorado Department of Human Services, the ALJ 

appropriately gave little weight to the Med-9 form, which contained a conclusory 

opinion without any meaningful analysis. See Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285, 1289 

(10th Cir. 2012) (stating the ALJ properly gave no weight to a conclusory Med-9 

form that “lacked any functional findings”). 

Appellate Case: 15-1498 Document: 01019676913 Date Filed: 08/24/2016 Page: 6 
- 7 - 

attempt to pursue every potential line of questioning.” Id. Rather, the ALJ need only 

ask sufficient questions to determine the nature of a claimant’s impairments, the 

medical treatment she received, and the impact of her impairments on her daily 

activities. Musgrave v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1371, 1375 (10th Cir. 1992). As noted 

above, the ALJ asked Ms. Jazvin about her symptoms, medications, and side effects. 

He also asked her about how her impairments affect her ability to drive and perform 

other activities. Especially when reviewed in conjunction with the other record 

evidence, the ALJ’s inquiry was sufficient. See Glass v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1392, 1396 

(10th Cir. 1994). This is especially so because Ms. Jazvin’s attorney did not seek to 

present any additional evidence or otherwise supplement the record. See Maes, 522 

F.3d at 1097 (“[W]e will not ordinarily reverse or remand for failure to develop the 

record when a claimant is represented by counsel who affirmatively submits to the 

ALJ that the record is complete.”). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

We affirm the district court’s ruling. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT, 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-1498 Document: 01019676913 Date Filed: 08/24/2016 Page: 7