A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 23,200 6 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT S HAR ON S HE RMAN,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. J O A NN E B. BA RN HA RT, C o m m iss io n e r o f

th e S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s tr at i on,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 7120 ( D . C. N o. CI V - 04 - 37 3- P) (E .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.

Pl ai nt i ff Shar on Sher m an appe al s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s aff i r m ance of the d e fe n d a n tS o c i a l S e c u r i tyCo mmi s s i o n e r ’ s d e n i a l o f s u p p l e me n t a l s e c u r i tyi n c o me ( S S I ) b e n e fi t s . S h e a r g u e s th a t( 1 ) t h e ALJ ’ s r e s i d u a l f u n c t i o n a l c a p a c i ty( RF C)- 2-

a s s e s s me n tfa i l e d t o i n c l u d e a l l o f h e rme n t a l l i mi t a t i o n s a n d ( 2 ) th e ALJ i mp r o p e r l ya s s e s s e d h e rc r e d i b i l i ty . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ), a n d w e a ffir m . M s . Sher m an s oughtSSI be nefi t s as of J une 4, 2002, al l egi ng di s abi l i tydue t o l ow bl ood pr es s ur e, l ow back pa i n, arthr i t i s i n herfee t , a mood di s or der , and a p e rs o n a lity d is o rd e r. T h e c la im w a s d e n ie d in itia lly a n d o n re c o n s id e ra tio n . A ft erhol di ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng, the admi ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge ( A L J ) found that M s. S herm an’s affect i ve m oo d d i sorderand his t oryof alcoho l and drug ab use w er e s ever e i m pai r m ent s . T he A L J deni ed SSI benef i t s ats t eps fourand fi ve of th e s e q u e n tia l e v a lu a tio n p ro c e s s , see F ischer- R oss v. B arnh art , 431 F. 3d 729, 731 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( des cr i bi ng fi ve s t eps ) , aft erfi ndi ng t hatM s . Sher m an had the phy s i cal R FC t o per form w or k atal l exert i onal l evel s , r es tr i ct ed byherm ent al R F C t o u nd ers t and , rem em ber and carryou ton l ycon cret e, si m ple i nst ruct i on s; h e r in a b ili tyto h a v e c o n tac t w ith th e g e n e ra l p u b lic; a n d h e r lim ited a b ili tyto hav e con t actw i th sup ervi sors or co-w orkers . G i ven her m ental R F C l i m i t at i on s, the A L J d eterm ined that M s. S h erm an co u ld p erfo rm h er p ast w o rk a s a h em m er, as w ell as a n u m b er o f o ther job s in the n ati o n al ec o n o m y , inclu d ing h o u sek ee p er, p arti ti o n asse m b ler, an d b ag g er job s. T h e A p p ea ls C o u n cil d en ied M s. S h erm an ’s r eques tforr evi ew , m aki ng t he A L J ’ s deci s i on the fi nal deci s i on of the C o m m is s io n e r. See D oya lv. B arnh art , 3 3 1 F . 3 d 7 5 8 , 7 5 9 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . On- 3-

j udi ci al r evi ew , t he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on a n d a ffir m e d th e d e n ia l o f b e n e fits . M s . S h e rm a n a p p e a ls . L i ke the di s tr i ctcourt , w e r evi ew the A L J ’ s deci s i on onl yt o det erm i ne w hetherthe corr ectl egal s t andar ds w er e appl i ed and w hetherthe A L J ’ s fac tual fin d in g s w e re s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . Id. a t 7 6 0 . Subst ant i al evi dence i s s uch r el evantevi dence as a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. W e cons i der w hetherthe A L J fol l ow ed the s peci fi c rul es of l aw thatm us tbe foll ow ed in w ei gh i ng part i culartypes of evidence in di sabi l i tycases, butw e w i l l notr ew ei gh t he evi dence ors ubs t i tut e ourj udgm entfor th e C o m m is s io n e r’ s . Hackettv. B arnh art , 395 F. 3d 1168, 1172 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( quot at i ons and c ita tio n s o m itte d ). I. R F CA s s es s m ent/

P r operWeighi ng of

Tre at i ng P hys i ci an’s O pi ni on M s . She r man f

i r s ta r gu e s tha tthe A LJ fa i l e d t o i nc l ud e i n the RFC as s es s m ental l of herm ent al l i m i t at i ons not ed byhertr eat i ng phy s i ci an, D r. W illia m s , a n d , th e re b y , fa ile d to p ro p e rl yw e ig h D r. W illia m s ’ o p in io n . A tre a tin g p h y sic ian ’s o p in io n is e n tit led to c o n tro lli n g w e ig h t if it is

“ w e ll-su p p o rte d b ym e d ica llya c c e p tab le c lin ica l an d lab o ra to ryd iag n o stic t echni ques ” and i f i ti s “cons i s t entw i th others ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d. ” L an gley v. B arnh art , 3 7 3 F .3 d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 1 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). D r. W illia m s ’ o p in io n w a s n o t w e ll- s u p p o rt e d b yh is tr e a tm e n t n o te s . D r . W i l l i ams expr es s ed hi s opi ni on i n a M edi cal Sour ce St at ementform as s es s i ng- 4-

M s. S herm an’s m ental R F C and i nd i cat ed thatshe w as m arkedl yl i m i t ed in m ost ar eas of func t i oni ng. T hi s as s es s m entform i s a che ck- the- boxes form , and Dr . Wi l l i a ms p r o v i d e d n o wr i t t e n e x p l a n a t i o n fo rth e l i mi t a t i o n s h e a s s e s s e d . He p re p a re d th e fo rm a f

te r t h e d a te s o f

h is v e ry b ri e f

a n d s u p e rfic ia l tr e a tm e n t n o te s . T hes e not es s ugges tt hatM s . Sher m an’ s m ent al heal th i m pr oved af t ers he bega n t aki ng m edi cat i on, and s he w as coher entand l ogi cal , had no gr os s cogni t i ve defe ct s , and w as notps y chot i c. T he M edi cal Sour ce St at ementform , “s t andi ng al on e, un accom pan i ed b yt ho rough w ri t t en repo rt s or per suasi ve tes t i m on y , [i s] n o t s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e ” th a t M s . S h e rm a n is u n a b le to w o rk . Fr ey v . B ow en , 8 1 6 F .2 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ). T h e A L J th e re fo re a p p ro p ria telyd e c lin e d to gi ve the opi ni on r efl ect ed bythe form “anys i gni fi cantw ei ght ” bec aus e i tw as

“ n o t su p p o rte d b y[ D r. W ill iam s’] m e d ica l re c o rd s.” A p lt. A p p ., tab 4 a t 2 2 ; s ee als o C ast el lan o v. Sec’y of Health & Hum an Servs. , 2 6 F . 3 d 1 0 2 7 , 1 0 2 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (de cidin g A L J m ayreject trea ti n g p h y sici an ’s op inion w h en p h y sici an ’s o ffic e n o te s d id n o t s u p p o rt o p in io n th a t c la im a n t w a s d is a b le d ). I n addi t i on, the A L J corr ect l ynot ed thatD r . W i l l i ams’ opi ni on w as not s uppor t ed byt he otherm ent al heal th m edi cal evi dence i n the r ecor d. T hat evi dence –D r . C r i t t enden’ s t hor ough r eportdi s cus s i ng hi s i n- depth cons ul t i ngD r . W i l l i ams’ tr eatm entnot es cont ai n l i t t l e det ai l , do nots ugges tt hathe 1 per form ed anyt es t s , s etfor th no hi s t ory , amount t o onl yfi ve page s of the a d m in istra tiv e re c o rd , an d c o n tain a lo t o f b lan k sp a c e s o n th o se fiv e p a g e s. A p lt. A p p ., tab 4 a t 1 2 6 , 1 2 7 , 1 9 2 , 1 9 3 , 1 9 4 . In c o m p a riso n , D r. C ritten d e n ’s r e p o rt is a fi ve- and- a- hal f page s i ngl e- s pace d narr at i ve, cont ai ni ng m uch det ai l and d e s c ri b in g th e te s ts h e c o n d u c te d . Id. a t 1 2 9 -3 4 .

- 5- p sy ch o log ical ex am ination , w h ich in clud ed test ing , an d D r. G o o d ri ch ’s 1 a s s e s s m e n t o f

th e m e d ic a l r e c o rd s – in d ic a te d th a t M s . S h e rm a n w a s n o t d is a b le d . B eca us e D r . W i l l i ams’ opi ni on w as notw el l - s uppor t ed and w as notcons i s t ent w i th the otherm edi cal evi dence , w e conc l ude the A L J corr ect l ydi d notgi ve D r. W illia m s ’ o p in io n c o n tr o llin g w e ig h t. B eca us e D r . W i l l i ams’ opi ni on w as notent i t l ed t o contr ol l i ng w ei ght , t he A L J w a s re q u ire d to w e ig h h is o p in io n b a se d o n th e fo llo w in g fa c to rs: ( 1) t he l ength of the tr eatm entr el at i ons hi p and the fr equenc yof exami nat i on; ( 2) the natur e and e xt entof the tr eatm entr el at i ons hi p, i ncl udi ng the tr eatm entpr ovi ded and the ki nd of exa m i nat i on or tes tin g p e rfo rm e d ; (3 ) th e d e g re e to w h ich th e p h y sic ian ’s o p in io n is s uppor t ed byr el evantevi dence ; ( 4) cons i s t encybetw een the opi ni on and the record as a w ho l e; (5) w hetheror not the p hy si ci an is a s peci al i s ti n t he ar ea upon w hi ch an opi ni on i s r ender ed; and (6) o ther fac tors b rou g h t t o the A L J’s att en ti o n w h ich ten d to su p p o rt o r c o n tr a d ic t th e o p in io n . Watki ns v. B arnh art , 350 F. 3d 1297, 1300- 01 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . A s the magi s tr at e j udge r ecogni zed, t he A L J addr es s ed the thi r d and four th fac t or s w hen i m pl i ci t l ydeci di ng thatD r . W i l l i ams’ opi ni on w as not e n tit led to c o n tro lli n g w e ig h t. T h e A L J a lso d isc u ss e d th e first, se c o n d , an d six thA tthe A L J ’ s hear i ng, M s . Sher m an’ s couns el w as uncert ai n w hether 2 D r. W illia m s w a s a b o a rd -c e rt ifie d p s y c h ia tr is t. A p lt. A p p ., ta b 4 a t 2 4 4 .

- 6- fa c t o r s whe n d i s c u s s i n g M s . Sh e r ma n ’ s fi v e v i s i t s wi th Dr . W i l l i a ms . Th e ALJ ther efor e cons i der ed al l of the Watki ns fa c to rs b u t th e fif th o n e . U n d e r th e fa c ts pr es ent ed her e, D r . W i l l i ams’ s peci al tyw as notr el evantt o the A L J ’ s w ei ghi ng analy si s. 2 O v e ra ll, th e A L J g a v e g o o d re a so n s fo r n o t g iv in g sig n ifica n t w e ig h t to D r. W ill iam s’ o p in io n a n d a g re e in g o n lyw ith h is o p in io n th a t M s. S h e rm a n c o u ld under s t and, r emem ber , and ca r r youts i m pl e i ns truct i ons ; coul d have no c ont act w i th the gene r al publ i c; and coul d have l i m i t ed cont actw i th s upervi s or s and c o -w o rk e rs . See Ham l i n v. B arnh art , 365 F. 3d 1208, 1215 ( 10th C i r . 2004) (req u ir ing A L J to g ive g o o d rea so n s fo r w eigh t give n to tr ea ti n g p h y sici an ’s opi ni on) . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatt he A L J pr oper l yas s es s ed M s . S h e rm a n ’s R F C . II. C re d ib ili ty M s . S h e rm a n a rg u e s th a t th e A L J d id n o t p ro p e rl ye v a lu a te h e r c re d ib ility. “C r edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons ar e pec ul i ar l yt he pr ovi nce of t he fi nderof fa ct , and w e w ill n o t u p s e t s u c h d e te rm in a tio n s w h e n s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e .” McG off i n v. B arnh art , 2 8 8 F .3 d 1 2 4 8 , 1 2 5 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). W e, how ever , m ayr evi ew t o ens ur e thatt he A L J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs under l y i ng t he- 7-

cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on ar e “c l os el yand affi r m at i vel yl i nked t o s ubs t ant i al evi dence and notj us ta conc l us i on i n the gui s e of f i ndi ngs . ” Ha c ke tt , 395 F. 3d a t 1 1 7 3 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). T he A L J det erm i ned thatM s . Sher m an’ s m ent al heal th pr obl ems coul d be expec t ed t o pr oduce l i m i t at i ons i n herabi l i tyt o per form bas i c w or k act i vi t i es , but n o tt o th e e x t e n ts h e a l l e g e d i n h e rs u bj e c t i v e c o mpl a i n t s . Sp e c i fi c a l l y , th e ALJ n o ted th a t M s. S h e rm a n h a d n o t b e e n h o sp italiz e d sin c e h e r a lleg e d d isa b ili ty ons etdat e, no t r eat i ng orexami ni ng phy s i ci an orm ent al heal th pr ofes s i onal has s t at ed thats he i s di s abl ed orhas i m pos ed anyl i m i t at i ons on herabi l i tyt o w or k, the medi cat i on s he t akes m uzzl es the voi ces s he hea r s , D r . C r i t t enden’ s and D r . G oodr i ch’ s as s es s m ent s do nots uppor thers ubj ectcompl ai nt s , and s he admi t t ed dur i ng hert es t i m onyt hats he ca n t ake c ar e of he rper s onal needs , fi x her m ea ls, d o h er lau n d ry , k ee p h er a p artm en t cl ea n , v isi t w ith a n eigh b o r, take ca re of dogs , r ead, att end chur ch, t end t o thr ee s m al l fl ow ergar dens nearher apart m ent , and s hop forgr ocer i es . A ft ers ett i ng for th thi s s peci fi c evi dence , the A L J concl uded thatM s . Sher m an’ s “al l egat i ons aboutthe s ever i tyof her i m pai r m ent s ar e . . . cr edi bl e onl yt o the ext entthattheyar e s uppor t ed bythe obj ect i ve medi cal r eport s fr om hertr eat i ng and exa m i ni ng phy s i ci ans / m ent al h e a lth p ro fe ss io n a ls.” A p lt. A p p ., tab 4 a t 2 7 . W e a g re e w ith th e m a g istra te ju d g e th a t th e A L J ’s s p e c ific fin d in g s w e re lin k e d to th e e v id e n c e . See Q ual ls v.- 8-

Apf el , 2 0 6 F .3 d 1 3 6 8 , 1 3 7 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (d e c id in g A L J’s c re d ib ili ty a ss e ss m e n t m e t leg a l sta n d a rd s w h e n A L J s e t fo rth sp e c ific e v id e n c e re lied o n in e v a lu a tin g c re d ib ility). A c c o rd in g ly, w e d e fe r t o th e A L J ’s c re d ib ility a n a lysis . B eca us e the A L J ’ s deni al of SSI be nefi t s i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d and bec aus e the A L J appl i ed corr ectl egal s ta n d a rd s , w e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt .

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge