UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

RODOLFO RIVERA, JR., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER, SSA, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 22-1026 

(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-02570-RMR) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Rodolfo Rivera, Jr., appeals pro se from a district court order affirming the 

Commissioner’s denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits.1

 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 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. 

1

 We liberally construe Mr. Rivera’s pro se filings, but we do not act as his 

advocate. See Walters v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 703 F.3d 1167, 1173 (10th Cir. 

2013). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 30, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 1
2 

I 

Mr. Rivera sought disability benefits for back, vision, and respiratory 

problems, among other ailments. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) 

evaluated Mr. Rivera’s application according to the agency’s five-step sequential 

evaluation process. See Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009).2

 At 

step two of the process, the ALJ determined Mr. Rivera was severely impaired by 

degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine with radiculopathy, carpal tunnel 

syndrome of the left upper extremity, chronic rhinitis, and obesity. But at step four 

of the evaluation process, the ALJ concluded Mr. Rivera was not disabled because he 

2

 In Wall, we outlined the five-step process used by the Social Security 

Administration to determine whether a claimant is disabled: 

Step one requires the agency to determine whether a claimant is 

presently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If not, the agency 

proceeds to consider, at step two, whether a claimant has a medically severe 

impairment or impairments. An impairment is severe under the applicable 

regulations if it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability 

to perform basic work activities. At step three, the ALJ considers whether 

a claimant’s medically severe impairments are equivalent to a condition 

listed in the appendix of the relevant disability regulation. If a claimant’s 

impairments are not equivalent to a listed impairment, the ALJ must 

consider, at step four, whether a claimant’s impairments prevent her from 

performing her past relevant work. Even if a claimant is so impaired, the 

agency considers, at step five, whether she possesses the sufficient residual 

functional capability to perform other work in the national economy. 

561 F.3d at 1052 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 2
3 

retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a reduced range of 

“medium work,” including his past relevant work in irrigation system maintenance.3

 

The Appeals Council declined review, and the district court affirmed the ALJ’s 

decision. Mr. Rivera then timely appealed. 

II 

“We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether the ALJ’s 

factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the 

3

 “Medium work” is defined as follows: 

Medium Work. Medium work involves lifting no more than 50 

pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up 

to 25 pounds. If someone can do medium work, we determine that he or 

she can also do sedentary and light work. 

20 C.F.R. § 1567(c). Social Security Ruling 83-10 further explains: 

Medium work. The regulations define medium work as lifting no more 

than 50 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects 

weighing up to 25 pounds. A full range of medium work requires 

standing or walking, off and on, for a total of approximately 6 hours in 

an 8-hour workday in order to meet the requirements of frequent lifting 

or carrying objects weighing up to 25 pounds. As in light work, sitting 

may occur intermittently during the remaining time. Use of the arms 

and hands is necessary to grasp, hold, and turn objects, as opposed to 

the finer activities in much sedentary work, which require precision use 

of the fingers as well as use of the hands and arms. 

. . . . 

In most medium jobs, being on one’s feet for most of the workday is 

critical. Being able to do frequent lifting or carrying of objects 

weighing up to 25 pounds is often more critical than being able to lift up 

to 50 pounds at a time. 

Soc. Sec. Rul. 83-10, 1983 WL 31251, at *6. 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 3
4 

correct legal standards were applied.” Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1161 

(10th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is more 

than a mere scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept 

as adequate to support a conclusion.” Noreja v. Comm’r, SSA, 952 F.3d 1172, 1178 

(10th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “We consider whether the ALJ 

followed the specific rules of law that must be followed in weighing particular types 

of evidence in disability cases, but we will not reweigh the evidence or substitute our 

judgment for the Commissioner’s.” Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1172 

(10th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Mr. Rivera contends the ALJ erred in 1) finding he no longer uses inhalers to 

treat his respiratory condition, 2) evaluating his vision impairment, and 3) assessing 

his RFC without fully accounting for his back pain. We consider these arguments in 

turn.4

1. Use of Inhalers 

Mr. Rivera contends the ALJ erroneously found he no longer uses inhalers. 

The ALJ stated, “[T]he claimant testified that he no longer uses inhalers.” R. at 

39-40. Mr. Rivera disputes this finding. According to Mr. Rivera, he indicated 

during the hearing that he “was out of inhalers and needed a refill.” Aplt. Opening 

4

 In the district court, Mr. Rivera also argued the ALJ erred at step four by 

failing to account for all of the demands of Mr. Rivera’s past work in irrigation 

system maintenance. That argument is not advanced in the opening brief, so we do 

not consider it. See Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1161 (explaining that appellate 

review is confined to the issues adequately briefed on appeal). 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 4
5 

Br. at 10. But that was not Mr. Rivera’s testimony. The ALJ asked Mr. Rivera, 

“[A]re you still on the inhalers, other medications for . . . breathing specifically?” 

R. at 69. Mr. Rivera replied, “No. No.” Id. This testimony demonstrates that he 

denied using inhalers, not that he needed to refill his prescriptions. Later during the 

hearing, the ALJ recalled that Mr. Rivera had “mentioned . . . not using inhalers 

anymore,” id. at 75, and Mr. Rivera did not clarify his earlier testimony or correct the 

ALJ. Under these circumstances, we conclude substantial evidence supports the 

ALJ’s finding that Mr. Rivera testified he no longer uses inhalers. 

2. Step Two: Vision Impairment 

Mr. Rivera challenges how the ALJ evaluated his vision impairment at step 

two. We first outline the governing legal principles. We then discuss how the ALJ 

evaluated Mr. Rivera’s vision impairment and consider two arguments Mr. Rivera 

advances challenging the ALJ’s analysis. 

a. Governing Step-Two Principles 

At step two of the sequential evaluation process, an ALJ must consider 

“whether a claimant has a medically severe impairment or impairments.” Wall, 

561 F.3d at 1052 (internal quotation marks omitted). Step two involves a 

“de minimis” showing because “only those claimants with slight abnormalities that 

do not significantly limit any basic work activity can be denied benefits without 

undertaking the subsequent steps of the sequential evaluation process.” Langley v. 

Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116, 1123 (10th Cir. 2004) (brackets and internal quotation 

marks omitted). “The step-two severity determination is based on medical factors 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 5
6 

alone, and does not include consideration of such vocational factors as age, 

education, and work experience.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither is 

the step-two severity determination based on a claimant’s “statement of symptoms”; 

rather, “a physical or mental impairment must be established by objective medical 

evidence from an acceptable medical source” and “result from anatomical, 

physiological, or psychological abnormalities that can be shown by medically 

acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521. As 

long as an ALJ finds at least one severe impairment at step two, the ALJ must 

proceed with the sequential evaluation process and evaluate the limiting effects of all 

impairments, both severe and non-severe, at subsequent steps of the evaluative 

process. See Allman v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 1326, 1330 (10th Cir. 2016) (explaining that 

at step two, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) requires only one severe impairment, and 

if established, the ALJ must proceed to evaluate the limiting effects of all 

impairments, severe and non-severe, during subsequent steps under § 404.1545(e)). 

b. ALJ’s Evaluation of Mr. Rivera’s Condition 

The ALJ recognized Mr. Rivera had been diagnosed with “unspecified macular 

degeneration,” which the ALJ deemed a medically determinable, but non-severe, 

impairment. R. at 36. Mr. Rivera’s macular degeneration and several other 

conditions were non-severe impairments, the ALJ found, because there was “no 

evidence of any ongoing functional limitations from these impairments due to the 

limited nature of [his] complaints, the good response to treatment, or the lack of any 

evidence of any functional limitations for any 12-month period of time.” Id. at 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 6
7 

36-37. Nonetheless, the ALJ still “consider[ed] any potential effects these 

impairments might cause or contribute to . . . the [RFC].” Id. at 37. 

The ALJ also observed Mr. Rivera had been “‘diagnosed’ with a number of 

symptoms,” including “unspecified subjective visual disturbance.” Id. The ALJ 

stated that “[s]ymptoms are not, on their own, medically determinable impairments,” 

although “to the extent these symptoms correlate to [Mr. Rivera’s] medically 

determinable impairments, they have been considered along with [the medically 

determinable impairments] in evaluating the severity of those medically determinable 

impairments.” Id. Thus, the ALJ ultimately found at step two that 

 Mr. Rivera’s macular degeneration was not a severe impairment; 

 That his “unspecified subjective visual disturbance” was not, on its own, 

a medically determinable impairment; and 

 Mr. Rivera had four other severe impairments. 

See id. at 36-37. The ALJ therefore proceeded with the subsequent steps of the 

sequential evaluation process. See id. at 37-42. 

c. Mr. Rivera’s Arguments 

On appeal, Mr. Rivera challenges the ALJ’s determination on two grounds.5

 

5

 Mr. Rivera contends the ALJ contradicted himself by initially finding 

Mr. Rivera had non-severe impairments, yet later acknowledging he had other severe 

impairments. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 5. We disagree. As we have indicated, the 

ALJ found at step two that Mr. Rivera had four severe impairments. See R. at 36. 

The ALJ then separately identified Mr. Rivera’s non-severe impairments. See id. at 

36-37. The ALJ proceeded to step three and evaluated whether any of Mr. Rivera’s 

severe impairments satisfied the criteria of a listed impairment and concluded they 

did not. See id. at 37. Thus, the ALJ continued to step four and reiterated that 

Mr. Rivera had four severe impairments. See id. at 39. We discern no contradiction. 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 7
8 

First, Mr. Rivera disputes the ALJ’s ruling that “‘[s]ymptoms are not, on their own, 

medically determinable impairments.’” Aplt. Opening Br. at 7 (quoting R. at 37). 

Relying on attachments to his opening brief, Mr. Rivera seems to contend there is 

ample evidence to establish a severe, medically determinable impairment.6

 

Mr. Rivera appears to be contending that his unspecified subjective visual 

disturbance was a severe medically determinable impairment, and the ALJ 

erroneously determined otherwise. This argument is unavailing. 

As the ALJ correctly recognized, a medically determinable impairment “must 

be established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source”; it 

cannot be established by a claimant’s “statement of symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1521. But as we explain, Mr. Rivera’s “unspecified subjective visual 

disturbance” was based on a statement he made about his own symptoms. Although 

the ALJ suggested it might have been correlated with Mr. Rivera’s macular 

degeneration (and Mr. Rivera does not contend otherwise), there is no evidence it 

was some other condition. Rather, the record indicates it was the label Mr. Rivera’s 

eye doctors used to describe the symptoms Mr. Rivera reported. 

6

 Some of the attachments to Mr. Rivera’s opening brief are not part of the 

agency record. Several documents actually post-date the ALJ’s decision. We do not 

consider evidence that was not part of the record and considered by the agency. See 

Atteberry v. Finch, 424 F.2d 36, 39 (10th Cir. 1970) (explaining that judicial review 

is limited to evidence in the agency record); accord Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 

1324, 1328 (10th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that if new evidence is presented to and 

rejected by the Appeals Council, it generally “plays no role in judicial review”). 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 8
9 

As Mr. Rivera points out, he saw Dr. Steven Witmarsh for his eye problems. 

See Aplt. Opening Br. at 7. Dr. Witmarsh referred Mr. Rivera for an optometry 

evaluation with a “[p]rovisional [d]iagnosis” of “[u]nspecified subjective visual 

disturbances.” R. at 371. The referral stated that Mr. Rivera had “a history of 

macular degeneration, now with persistent intermittent visual changes, please 

evaluate and treat[.]” Id. Mr. Rivera was referred to Dr. Lori Hamm, who noted the 

“[r]eason for [the a]ppointment” was “[u]nspecified subjective visual disturbances.” 

Id. at 367. The note explained that on screening, Mr. Rivera “report[ed] getting a 

film that comes over [his] eyes while reading. Both eyes, intermittent frequency, and 

duration described as for the past 6 months.” Id. at 367-68. But the note specifically 

identified Mr. Rivera’s “[e]ye disorder/disease” as early age-related macular 

degeneration. Id. at 368. And although Mr. Rivera’s exam indicated mostly normal 

anatomical findings, examination of his retina revealed abnormal macula, which was 

assessed as “[n]onexudative age-related macular degeneration.” Id. at 370.7

 Indeed, 

notwithstanding the provisional diagnosis of “[u]nspecified subjective visual 

disturbances,” only macular degeneration was listed among the note’s findings. See

id. at 370-71. As the agency record confirms, the objective medical evidence 

indicated an anatomical abnormality assessed as macular degeneration, which the 

7

 The exam also detected abnormalities of the lenses, and although there were 

no ocular findings of cataracts, the note concluded there were “[m]ild cataracts,” see

R. at 368, 370. At step two, the ALJ found that Mr. Rivera’s “bilateral cataracts” 

were a non-severe impairment. Id. at 36. Mr. Rivera does not challenge the ALJ’s 

evaluation of his cataracts. 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 9
10 

ALJ determined was a medically determinable impairment. The term “[u]nspecified 

subjective visual disturbances” was merely the label Dr. Witmarsh and Dr. Hamm 

used to describe the symptoms reported by Mr. Rivera. A statement of symptoms 

cannot establish a medically determinable impairment, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521, 

however. The ALJ did not err in declining to designate Mr. Rivera’s “unspecified 

subjective visual disturbance” a medically determinable impairment. 

Mr. Rivera’s second argument is also unavailing. He contends the ALJ should 

have found his macular degeneration was a severe impairment. But at step two, “a 

claimant need only establish, and an ALJ need only find, one severe impairment,” 

Allman, 813 F.3d at 1330. “The reason is grounded in the Commissioner’s regulation 

describing step two, which states: ‘If you do not have a severe medically 

determinable physical or mental impairment or a combination of impairments that is 

severe, we will find that you are not disabled.’” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) (ellipses omitted)). The plain language of this regulation 

requires only one severe impairment to avoid the denial of benefits at step two. Id. 

Thus, so long as a claimant establishes at least one severe impairment, the ALJ 

cannot deny benefits at step two and must proceed with the sequential evaluation 

process and account for the limiting effects of all impairments, even those that are 

not severe. 

Here, the ALJ found Mr. Rivera had four other severe impairments. Under 

these circumstances, the ALJ appropriately proceeded with the sequential evaluation 

process, recognizing he was bound to “consider any potential effects [the non-severe] 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 10
11 

impairments might cause or contribute to . . . the [RFC].” R. at 37. The ALJ also 

considered Mr. Rivera’s symptoms, including his subjective visual disturbance, “in 

evaluating the severity of [his] medically determinable impairments.” Id. Because 

the ALJ found at least one severe impairment and proceeded with the evaluative 

process, the ALJ did not err in his step-two evaluation. See Allman, 813 F.3d at 1330 

(“[T]he [ALJ’s] failure to find a particular impairment severe at step two is not 

reversible error when the ALJ finds that at least one other impairment is severe.”). 

3. Step Four: Mr. Rivera’s RFC & the Credibility of his Pain Allegations 

At step four, the ALJ determined Mr. Rivera had the RFC for a reduced range 

of medium work that allowed him to: 

 occasionally lift/carry 50 pounds and frequently lift/carry 25 pounds; 

 stand and/or walk 6 hours in an 8-hour workday; 

 sit 6 hours in an 8-hour workday; 

 never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; 

 frequently stoop or climb ramps and stairs; 

 frequently reach, handle, finger, feel or operate hand controls with his 

bilateral upper extremities; 

 tolerate no more than frequent exposure to pulmonary irritants; and 

 have no exposure to hazards. 

R. at 38. In assessing this RFC, the ALJ determined Mr. Rivera’s “impairments 

could reasonably be expected to cause some of the alleged symptoms; however, [his] 

statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 11
12 

symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in 

the record.” Id. at 39. 

Mr. Rivera contends the ALJ improperly discounted his allegations of neck 

and back pain when assessing his RFC. To better understand this contention, we 

explain the relationship between the ALJ’s RFC assessment and the ALJ’s evaluation 

of a claimant’s credibility. 

In the first phase of step four, an “ALJ must evaluate a claimant’s physical and 

mental [RFC].” Bowman v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 1270, 1272 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). A claimant’s RFC “is the most [he] can still do despite 

[his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). The RFC assessment is based on all 

the relevant evidence, including a claimant’s credible allegations of pain. See id.

§§ 404.1529, 404.1545(a)(3). Because an ALJ’s credibility evaluation helps “the 

ALJ assess a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ’s credibility and RFC determinations are 

inherently intertwined.” Poppa v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 1167, 1171 (10th Cir. 2009). 

We employ a deferential standard when reviewing an ALJ’s credibility 

finding. “Credibility determinations are peculiarly the province of the finder of fact, 

and we will not upset such determinations when supported by substantial evidence. 

However, findings as to credibility should be closely and affirmatively linked to 

substantial evidence and not just a conclusion in the guise of findings.” Hackett, 

395 F.3d at 1173 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). An “ALJ must 

articulate specific reasons for questioning the claimant’s credibility where subjective 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 12
13 

pain testimony is critical.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). But we cannot 

reweigh the evidence or “substitute our judgment for that of the [ALJ].” Id. 

When evaluating a claimant’s allegations of pain, the ALJ must determine: 

(1) whether the claimant established a pain-producing impairment by 

objective medical evidence; (2) if so, whether the impairment is 

reasonably expected to produce some pain of the sort alleged (what we 

term a “loose nexus”); and (3) if so, whether, considering all the 

evidence, both objective and subjective, the claimant’s pain was in fact 

disabling. 

Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1166-67. 

Here, the ALJ recognized Mr. Rivera had a pain-producing impairment. This 

was based on diagnostic imaging indicating Mr. Rivera had progressive degenerative 

disc disease at the C4/5, C5/6, and C6/7 vertebrae, with straightening of the normal 

lordotic curvature of the cervical spine, which might have been secondary to 

positioning or muscle spasm. R. at 379-80. The ALJ also found Mr. Rivera’s 

impairments could be expected to cause some of his symptoms, including his pain. 

See id. at 39. The question then became whether his pain was disabling. On that 

score, the ALJ found that Mr. Rivera’s “statements concerning the intensity, 

persistence and limiting effects of [his] symptoms [were] not entirely consistent with 

the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” Id. Mr. Rivera disputes this 

finding, but the ALJ’s analysis was sound. 

An ALJ evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s allegations of pain should 

consider: 

a claimant’s persistent attempts to find relief for [his] pain and [his] 

willingness to try any treatment prescribed, regular use of crutches or a 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 13
14 

cane, regular contact with a doctor, and the possibility that 

psychological disorders combine with physical problems and the 

claimant’s daily activities, and the dosage, effectiveness, and side 

effects of medication. 

Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1167 (internal quotation marks omitted). The ALJ must 

“set[] forth the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating the claimant’s credibility” 

but need not engage in “a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.” 

Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368, 1372 (10th Cir. 2000). 

We conclude the ALJ closely and affirmatively linked his adverse credibility 

finding to substantial evidence in the record, providing “specific reasons” for 

discounting the severity of Mr. Rivera’s pain symptoms, SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 

5180304, at *10 (Oct. 25, 2017). The ALJ first considered Mr. Rivera’s medications, 

noting they included ibuprofen, oxycodone, gabapentin, and meloxicam, and 

recognizing the gabapentin helped his pain symptoms but “[made] him feel 

different.” R. at 39. The ALJ observed Mr. Rivera’s treatments were “generally 

successful,” including his use of medication. Id. at 41. The ALJ supported this 

finding with substantial evidence.8

 The ALJ also recognized Mr. Rivera testified that 

his medications helped his neck and back pain, see id. at 74, which further supports 

the ALJ’s decision to discount Mr. Rivera’s testimony concerning the limiting effects 

8 See, e.g., id. at 443 (June 15, 2017, treatment note indicating neck pain but he 

was “good to go” if he took pain medication (internal quotation marks omitted)); id.

at 487 (July 18, 2016, treatment note continuing medication and adding a second 

medication); id. at 742 (Aug. 2, 2018, treatment note indicating pain medications 

were working and authorizing refill of prescriptions); id. at 750 (June 26, 2018, 

treatment note authorizing refill of pain medication). 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 14
15 

of his pain symptoms, see White v. Barnhart, 287 F.3d 903, 909-10 (10th Cir. 2002) 

(“[Claimant’s] admission that medication relieved some of her pain . . . further 

support[s] [the ALJ’s] belief that she was capable of performing more extensive work 

activities than she acknowledged.”). 

The ALJ also observed Mr. Rivera testified his pain was alleviated with use of 

a TENS unit. See R. at 74 (testifying during the hearing that “the TENS unit has 

been really awesome”). And the ALJ explained Mr. Rivera benefited from physical 

therapy and dry needling, see id. at 380-87 (physical therapy notes indicating 

Mr. Rivera benefitted most from dry needling), and although he was offered a 

surgery for his condition at C5/6, Mr. Rivera was unwilling to try that treatment, see 

id. at 64-65 (testifying during the hearing that “when the painkillers stop working . . . 

or if I get to a point where I . . . can’t endure it no more . . ., then[] you can go ahead 

and cut me open”). 

The ALJ discussed Mr. Rivera’s examination findings, acknowledging that 

some treatment notes confirmed his pain symptoms. See, e.g., id. at 443 (June 15, 

2017, treatment note indicating neck pain but he was “good to go” if he took pain 

medication (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 469 (Mar. 7, 2017, treatment 

note indicating neck and back symptoms and advising him to continue medication, 

check diagnostic imaging, and refer to physical therapy upon his request); id. at 487 

(July 18, 2016, treatment note indicating neck and upper back pain to be treated with 

medication, heat, stretching, and massage). Yet the ALJ also recognized other exam 

findings were largely normal and sometimes indicated Mr. Rivera had no pain or 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 15
16 

tenderness at all in his back or neck. See, e.g., id. at 398 (Dec. 14, 2017, treatment 

note indicating no back pain or neck tenderness); id. at 419 (Nov. 29, 2017, treatment 

note indicating normal neck findings); id. at 424-25 (Oct. 30, 2017, treatment note 

indicating neck was normal with no back tenderness); id. at 505 (Apr. 1, 2016, 

treatment note indicating no decrease in neck suppleness). 

The ALJ then discussed observations made by Mr. Rivera’s medical providers 

during his examinations. The ALJ recognized one provider observed Mr. Rivera’s 

straight-leg raise test was normal. See R. at 482 (Sept. 20, 2016, treatment note 

indicating negative straight-leg raise tests). The ALJ also noted another provider 

observed Mr. Rivera’s gait, movements, reflexes, and strength were all normal. See

id. at 412 (Dec. 14, 2017, treatment note indicating normal findings in each 

category). 

Finally, the ALJ discounted Mr. Rivera’s allegations of pain given his “good 

level of daily activities.” Id. at 40. The ALJ explained Mr. Rivera had reported to a 

consultative examiner that he was able to get in and out of bed, drive, bathe, cook 

and clean for himself, and typically spent his days reading. See id. at 656. The ALJ 

also noted Mr. Rivera completed a disability report indicating he could perform his 

own personal care tasks, drive, use a computer, manage his finances, do laundry, go 

out to eat, and attend church. Id. at 222-24. After examining the record as a whole, 

we are persuaded the ALJ closely and affirmatively linked his credibility finding to 

substantial evidence, which we have no authority to reweigh. See Hackett, 395 F.3d 

at 1172-73. 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 16
17 

III 

 The district court’s judgment is affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Veronica S. Rossman 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 22-1026 Document: 010110775558 Date Filed: 11/30/2022 Page: 17