A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi 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 the 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 underthe 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 

### O c t ob e r19,2006 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

CA RMEL A L E DF OR D,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. J O A NN E B. BA RN HA RT, C om m i s s i oner , Soci al Secur i tyA dm i ni s tr at i on,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 7111 ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV - 1 6 6 - WH) (E .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C hi ef J udge, O’ BRI EN , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

C arm el a Ledfor d appea l s fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or deraff i r m i ng the C o m m issi o n er’s d en ial o f h er a p p li ca ti o n fo r sup p lem en tal sec u ri tyinco m e (S S I) benef i t s underT i t l e X V I of the Soci al Secur i tyA ct . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under-2-

4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re v e rse in p a rt a n d a ffirm in p a rt, a s s e t fo rt h b e lo w . I . Backg r ound M s. L ed fo rd a p p li ed fo r S S I i n Ju ly2 0 0 1 , all eg ing an inab il ityto w o rk s i nce M ay2000, due t o carpal tunnel s yndr om e, l efts houl derpai n, and nerve d am ag e in h er righ t arm . A p lt . A p p . 1 2 6 , 2 2 7 . T h e a g en cyd en ied M s. L ed fo rd’s appl i cat i on forbenef

i t s i ni t i al l yand on r econs i der at i on. She then r ece i ved a de novo hear i ng befor e an a dm i ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge ( A L J ) . T he A L J found M s. L ed fo rd h ad ca rpa l tu n n el syn d rom e a n d d ep ressive d isord er, sev ere i m pai r m ent s underthe appl i cabl e r egul at i ons , butdet erm i ned thats he di d not have “ anyfunct i onal r es tr i ct i ons . . . thatw oul d pr ecl ude l i ghtw or k act i vi ty , ” i d. at18. T he A L J des cr i bed M s . L edfor d’ s r es i dual funct i onal capa ci ty( R FC ) as foll ow s: lift/c a rry2 0 p o u n d s o c c a sio n a llya n d 1 0 p o u n d s f re q u e n tly ; sit 6 hour s outof an 8- hourw or kday ; s t and 6 hour s outof an 8- hour w or kday ; no overhead orabove s houl derw or k; m oder at e l i m i t at i ons to fo llo w a n d c a rryo u t d e taile d in stru c tio n s; m ild to m o d e ra te o c c a sio n a l ch ro n ic p a in b u t co u ld c a rryo u t n o rm a l w o rk a ss ig n m e n ts s a t i s fa c t o r i l y. Id. at18- 19. R el y i ng on the t es t i m onyof a voc at i onal expert( V E ) , the A L J m ade al t ernat i ve det erm i nat i ons ats t eps fourand fi ve of the fa m i l i arfi ve- s t ep s e q u e n tia l e v a lu a tio n p ro c e s s . S e e Mu rr e ll v. Sh a la la , 43 F. 3d 1388, 1389 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( r ecogni zi ng the bene fi tof al t ernat i ve det erm i nat i ons i n the-3-

so c ial s e c u rityre v iew p ro c e ss ); Wi l l i am s v. B ow en , 844 F. 2d 748, 750- 52 ( 10th C i r . 1988) ( des cr i bi ng fi ve- s t ep pr oces s ) . T he A L J concl uded that M s. L e d fo rd w a s n o t d isa b led b e c a u se u n d e r ste p fo u r sh e re tain e d th e R F C to per form herpas tw or k, and unders t ep fi ve s he r et ai ned the R FC t o per form other jo b s a v a ila b le in th e re g io n a l a n d n a tio n a l e c o n o m ie s . T he A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed M s . L edfor d’ s r eques tforr evi ew , s t at i ng that i thad cons i der ed the addi t i onal evi dence s ubm i t t ed butthatthe evi dence di d not pr ovi de a ba s i s forchangi ng the A L J ’ s deci s i on. T he di s tr i ctcourtaff i r m ed and ado pted the m agis trat e j ud ge’s fi nd i ng s and recom m end at i on s, den y i ng ben efi t s. T h is a p p e a l fo llo w e d . M s. L e d fo rd a ss e rts (1 ) th e A L J im p ro p e rly d isre g a rd e d tre a tin g a n d c o n su lti n g p h y sic ian s’ o p in io n s a n d a s a re su lt fo rm u late d a n R F C th a t d o e s n o t in c lu d e a ll o f h e r lim itatio n s, (2 ) th e A p p e a ls C ounci l comm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err ori n deny i ng herr eques tforr evi ew , and ( 3) the A L J m a d e a n im p ro p e r c re d ib ili tya ss e ss m e n t. I I . St andard of R evi ew and D i s cus s i on B eca us e the A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed r evi ew , the A L J ’ s deci s i on i s the C o m m is s io n e r’ s fin a l d e c is io n fo r p u rp o s e s o f th is a p p e a l. See J

ens en v. B arnh art , 4 3 6 F . 3 d 1 1 6 3 , 1 1 6 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). In re v iew ing the A L J’s deci s i on, “w e nei therr ew ei gh the evi dence nors ubs t i tut e ourj udgm entforthatof the age ncy . ” C asi as v. Sec’y of Health & Hum an Servs. , 933 F. 2d 799, 800 ( 10th C i r . 1991) . I ns t ead, w e r evi ew the A L J ’ s deci s i on onl yt o det erm i neM s . L edfor d fi l ed a pr i orappl i cat i on forSSI on J ul y19, 2000, w hi ch w as 1 deni ed i ni t i al l y , on O ct ober20, 2000, and on r econs i der at i on, on N ovember30, 2000. I ns t ead of

s eeki ng a hea r i ng befor e an A L J on thatappl i cat i on, s he fi l ed a n e w a p p lic a tio n fo r S S I o n A p ri l 2 6 , 2 0 0 1 (t h e a p p lic a tio n a t is s u e in th is a p p e a l) . A lth o u g h M s . L e d fo rd is p re c lu d e d f ro m c la im in g b e n e fits p ri o r t o N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 0 , ev id e n c e f

ro m th e p re v io u slya dju d ica ted p e rio d is s til l re lev a n t. Ham l i n v. B arnh art , 3 6 5 F . 3 d 1 2 0 8 , 1 2 1 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). -4- w h ethe r his fa ctua l fi n d ing s are su p p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce in the rec o rd a n d w h e th e r h e a p p lie d th e c o rr e c t le g a l s ta n d a rd s . See J ens en , 4 3 6 F .3 d a t 1 1 6 5 . M s . L edfor d fi r s tas s ert s thatthe A L J err oneous l ydi s r egar ded tr eat i ng and c o n s u ltin g p h y s ic ia n s ’ o p in io n s , a n d a s a re s u lt, fo rm u la te d a n in c o m p le te R F C . S p ec ifi ca ll y , sh e c lai m s h er R F C sh o u ld h av e inc lud ed a “ refere n ce to [ h er] decr eas ed gr i p s tr ength and [he r ] i nabi l i tyt o engage i n r epet i t i ve mot i on act i vi t i es w i th herupperextr emi t i es . ” A pl t . B r . at12. W e addr es s eac h al l eged l i m i t at i on in tu rn . T he r ecor d cont ai ns thr ee pi ece s of evi dence i ndi cat i ng M s . L edfor d has r educe d gr i p s tr ength: tr eat i ng phy s i ci an N el m s ’ s opi ni on, w hi ch pr e- dat es M s . L edfor d’ s fi r s t deni al of SSI; tr eat i ng phy s i ci an N ett l e’ s opi ni on; and 1 cons ul t i ng phy s i ci an K r i s hnamurthi ’ s opi ni on. Speci fi cal l y , on J une 28, 2000, D r . N el m s r eport ed thatM s . L edfor d had r educe d gr i p s tr ength and r educe d r ange of m oti on of h er r i gh tw ri st . A plt . A pp . at16 5. O n A pri l 20 , 20 01 , D r. N et t l es, w ho had bee n tr eat i ng M s . L edfor d forcarpal tunnel s yndr om e, r eport ed i n a p ro g re ss n o te u n d e r “ P h y sic a l E x a m in a tio n ” th a t M s. L e d fo rd h a d re d u c e d g rip s tr ength of herr i ghthand and pa i n as s oci at ed w i th pas s i ve movem entof herr i ghtT hes e phy s i ci ans m ayhave, combi ned, s een M s . L edfor d on m or e than fi ve 2 o c c a sio n s, b u t b e c a u se se v e ra l o f M s. L e d fo rd ’s m e d ica l re c o rd s h a v e ill e g ib le p h y s ic ia n s ig n a tu re s w e c a n n o t b e s u re . See A p lt. A p p . a t 1 9 0 -9 1 , 1 8 9 . -5- w ri s t. Id. at185. O n J une 11, 2002, D r . K r i s hnamurthi , a cons ul t i ng phy s i ci an, exami ned M s . L edfor d and quant i fi ed herr educe d gr i p s tr ength: “[m]ot or s tr ength i s . . . 4/ 5 i n r i ghthand. ” Id. at228. H e al s o not ed and “ cons i der ed r el i abl e” M s . L edfor d’ s r eportthats he “i s notabl e t o do m uch w i th herr i ght arm . ” Id . a t 2 2 7 . W e r ecogni ze that“an A L J i s notr equi r ed t o di s cus s everypi ece of evi dence . ” C l i

f t on v. C hat er , 7 9 F .3 d 1 0 0 7 , 1 0 0 9 -1 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). B u t “in add i t i on t o d i scussi ng the ev i den ce supp ort i ng his decis i on , the A L J al so m ust di s cus s the uncontr overt ed evi dence he choos es nott o r el yupon, as w el l as s i gni fi cant l ypr obat i ve evi dence he r ej ect s . ” Id. a t1 0 1 0 . I n th i s c a s e , th e ALJ c ited D r. K rish n a m u rth i’s re p o rt w ith o u t m e n tio n in g h is re d u c e d -g rip -stre n g th fin d ing . A n d , alth o u g h the A L J ap p are n tl yreli ed u p o n D r. K ri sh n am u rth i’ s rep o rtfo r his o ther find ing s, h e d id n o t exp lai n w h at w eigh t he g av e it . F u rth er, w e c a n n o t tell if th e A L J to o k in to c o n sid e ra tio n th e re d u c e d -g rip -stre n g th opi ni ons of D r . N el m s and D r . N ett l es , tr eat i ng phy s i ci ans w ho, combi ned, s aw M s . L e d fo rd a t le a s t fiv e tim e s d u ri n g 2 0 0 0 a n d 2 0 0 1 . A p lt. A p p . a t 1 6 5 , 1 9 2 -9 3 , 1 8 7 -88 , 2 1 5 -16 . Ind ee d , the A L J’s d ec isi o n fa il s to ide n ti fyD r. N elm s o r D r. 2 N ett l es , orexpl ai n w hatw ei ght , i f any , he as s i gned t o thei ropi ni ons , as r equi r ed b y8 C .F .R . § 4 1 6 .9 2 7 (d ). See Watki ns v. B arnh art , 350 F. 3d 1297, 1300- 01L ikew ise, red u ce d g ri p str en g th m ayaffe ct M s. L ed fo rd’s a b il ityto p erfo rm 3 herpas tw or k as a “hous ekee p[er ] , cas hi er , di s hw as her , ki t chen he l per , [and] cl othes i r oner , ” ort o adj us tt o the otherw or k i dent i fi ed bythe V E and r el i ed upon bythe A L J –m at er i al advert i s er , t i ckets el l er , bench a s s embl yw or ker , and i nform at i on cl erk. A pl t . A pp. at19. -6- ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( expl ai ni ng anal y s i s A L J s houl d fol l ow i n as s es s i ng tr eat i ng so u rce m ed ical op inion s). W i thoutthe bene fi tof the A L J ’ s fi ndi ngs and hi s w ei ghi ng of the r educe dgr i p- s tr ength evi dence , a r evi ew i ng courti s ata l os s . W e ca nnott el l w hether , as M s . L edfor d cont ends , herR FC s houl d have c ont ai ned a r efe r ence t o herr educe d gr i p s tr ength. T he C om m i s s i onercount er s “thatboth M s . L edfor d’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci ans [ ’] and D rK r i s hnamurthi ’ s fi ndi ngs w er e cons i s t entw i th the A L J ’ s R FC . . . [and] [ f]o r th is re a so n , the A L J w a s n o t re q u ire d to f u rth e r w e ig h th e sta tem e n ts in thos e r ecor ds . ” A pl ee. B r . at15 ( ci t i ng How ard v. Ba rnha rt , 379 F. 3d 945, 947 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ) . W e di s agr ee. Fi r s t , the C om m i s s i oner ’ s pos i t i on i gnor es the pos s i bi l i tythatr educe d gr i p s tr ength m ayaffectl i ft i ng, carry i ng, pul l i ng, m a n ip u la tiv e , o r h a n d lin g f u n c tio n s . See 8 C . F. R . § 416. 945( b) ( i dent i fy i ng p h y s ic a l a b iliti e s c o n s id e re d in a s s e s s in g R F C ). S e c o n d , How ar d is 3 di s t i ngui s habl e. I n How ard , the cl ai m antchal l enged a s concl us oryand uns ubs t ant i at ed the A L J ’ s R FC det erm i nat i on. W e agr eed thatthe A L J ’ s l ack of an aly sis w as trou b li n g b u t “co n clud e[ d ] th at su b stan ti al ev iden ce in the rec o rd s uppor t [ed] the A L J ’ s R FC det erm i nat i on, ” emphas i zi ng thatthe A L J had-7-

“ d is c u s s e d a ll o f

th e re le v a n t m e d ic a l e v id e n c e in s o m e d e ta il. . . . a n d [ th a t] . . . none of the r ecor d m edi cal evi dence confl i ct [ed] w i th the A L J ’ s concl us i on that claim an t c[o u ld] p erfo rm li g h t w o rk.” 3 7 9 F . 3 d at 94 7 . T h is case is differe n t. In thi s cas e, the A L J di d notpr ovi de a de t ai l ed di s cus s i on of al l of the r el evant m edi cal evi dence . H e pr ovi ded an a bbr evi at ed s um m aryof the medi cal evi dence thatacknow l edged M s . L efor d had the “a cut e di s eas e of c arpal tunnel , ” w i thout d isc u ss in g h e r re d u c e d g rip stre n g th o r id e n tify in g h e r tre a tin g p h y sic ian s. A p lt. A p p . at 1 6 . W ith o u t th e A L J’s c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e re d u c e d -g rip -stre n g th evi dence i ti s uncl ear , as pr evi ous l yal l uded t o, w hetherthe r ecor d m edi cal evi dence confl i ct s w i th the A L J ’ s R FC as s es s m ent . T hus , w e ca nnotconcl ude on the fa ct s of thi s cas e, as w e di d on the fa ct s of How ard , “thats ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d s uppor t s the A L J ’ s R FC det erm i nat i on. ” 379 F. 3d at947. W e do nothave s uffi ci enti nform at i on t o m ake s uch a de t erm i nat i on. “T h e fail u re to a p p lythe c o rrect l eg al st an d ard [s] o r t o p rov ide th is co u rt w i th a s uffi ci entbas i s t o det erm i ne thatappr opr i at e l egal pr i nci pl es have be en fol l ow ed i s gr ounds forr ever s al . ” Jens en , 4 3 6 F .3 d a t 1 1 6 5 (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). S in c e th e A L J d id n o t d isc u ss th e re c o rd e v id e n c e re g a rd in g re d u c e d g rip s tr ength, orexpl ai n w hatw ei ght , i f any , he ac cor ded M s . L edfor d’ s tr eat i ng and c o n su lti n g p h y sic ian s’ o p in io n s, w e m u st re m a n d to a llo w th e C o m m iss io n e r to c o n d u c t th e re q u ir e d a n a lyse s . Threetv. B arnh art , 353 F. 3d 1185, 1190 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (re m a n d in g “ fo r th e A L J to a rticu late sp e c ific fin d in g s a n d h is-8-

re a so n s fo r ig n o rin g . . . ev id e n c e ” ); Watki ns , 350 F. 3d at1300 ( r emandi ng beca us e a r evi ew i ng courti s unabl e t o pr oper l yr evi ew the A L J ’ s deci s i on w i thout “[a n] expl anat i on forthe w ei ght , i f any , [the A L J ] gave t o the opi ni on of . . . the tre a tin g p h y sic ian ” ); Ha m lin , 3 6 5 F. 3 d a t1 2 1 5 ( e x p l a i n i n g th a t“ [ i ] f a n ALJ in ten d s to re lyo n a n o n tre a tin g p h y sic ian o r e x a m in e r’s o p in io n , h e m u st e x p lain the w ei ghthe i s gi vi ng t o i t ”) . O n r emand, the A L J s houl d al s o eval uat e the new evi dence s ubm i tt ed t o and cons i der ed bythe A ppeal s C ounci l : D r . N el m s ’ s 2003 sta tem e n t th a t, ba se d o n h is re v iew o f M s. L e d fo rd ’s m e d ica l re c o rd s a n d h is “ow n exami nat i ons , ” s he i s unabl e t o per form “r epet i t i ve type w ork thatr equi r es fr equentr eac hi ng, handl i ng orfi nger i ng w i th ei therextr emi ty . ” A pl t . A pp. at 2 5 8 . A s w ith M s. L e d fo rd ’s r e d u c e d -g rip -stre n g th e v id e n c e , w e c a n n o t tell w h e th e r, as M s. L e d fo rd c o n ten d s, h e r R F C sh o u ld h a v e c o n tain e d a re fe re n c e to h e r i n a b ility to e n g a g e in re p e titiv e m o tio n a c tiv itie s . M s. L e d fo rd n e x t ar g u e s th a t th e A p p e a ls C o u n c il co m m itt e d re v e rsib le err ori n deny i ng herr eques tforr evi ew beca us e the new evi dence cr eat ed a re a so n a b le p o ss ib ili tyth a t th e A L J w o u ld h a v e c o m e to a d iffe re n t co n c lu sio n if the evi dence had bee n befor e hi m , and i ti s uncl earthe A ppeal s C ounci l even eval uat ed the new evi dence . T hi s cont ent i on i s m ooti n l i ghtof ourdi s pos i t i on her e. T hati s , on r emand, M s . L edfor d w i l l have a n oppor tuni tyt o pr es ent a rg u m e n t to th e A L J c o n c e rn in g th e n e w e v id e n c e th a t is n o w p a rt o f th e re c o rd . See Mart i nez v. B arnh art , 4 4 4 F .3 d 1 2 0 1 , 1 2 0 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).-9-

F in a lly , M s. L e d fo rd a ss e rts th a t th e A L J m a d e a n im p ro p e r c re d ib ili ty as s es s m entbyfai l i ng t o “pr oper l yeval uat e [he r ] s ubj ect i ve al l egat i ons c o n c e rn in g h e r im p a irm e n ts,” A p lt. B r. at 1 8 , an d b y“ re so rt[ in g ] to b o ilerp late l anguage , ” i d. at20 . W e are not per suaded byei ther of these ass ert i on s.

“ [ F ]in d in g s a s to c re d ib ili tysh o u ld b e c lo se lya n d a ffirm a tiv e lylin k e d to s ubs t ant i al evi dence , ” Kepl erv. C hat er , 68 F. 3d 387, 391 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) , but“a for m al i s t i c fa ct or - by - fac t orr eci t at i on of the evi dence ” i s n o tn e c e s s a ry, Q ual ls v. Apf el , 206 F. 3d 1368, 1372 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . H avi ng c a re f u llye x a m in e d th e re c o rd a s a w h o le, w e a re sa tisfied th a t th e A L J s e t fo rth the s peci fi c s ubs t ant i al evi dence upon w hi ch he r el i ed i n eval uat i ng M s . L e d fo rd ’s c re d ib ility a n d w e th e re fo re reje c t th e s e c la im s o f e rr o r. See i d. I I I . C oncl usi on Th e j u d g me n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AFFI RM ED i n p a r ta n d REV ERSED in p a rt, an d th e c a se is R E M A N D E D to th e d istric t co u rt w ith d ire c tio n s to R E M A N D to th e C o m m iss io n e r fo r a d d iti o n a l p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is di s pos i t i on. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge