Source: https://casetext.com/case/thompson-v-colvin-105
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:41:38+00:00

Document:
RANDALL THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Plaintiff Randall Thompson filed this action asking the Court to reverse and remand the Social Security Administration's final agency decision denying his Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Social Security Income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434, 1381-1383f. The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") determined that Mr. Thompson did not qualify as disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (Administrative R. ("R.") 521, ECF No. 8.) Having carefully considered the parties' memoranda, the complete record in this matter, and the oral argument, the Court REVERSES and REMANDS the Commissioner's decision.
42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) provide for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"). The Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence in support of the Commissioner's factual findings and whether the SSA applied the correct legal standards. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007). The Commissioner's findings shall stand if supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3).
Adequate, relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion constitutes substantial evidence, and "[e]vidence is insubstantial if it is overwhelmingly contradicted by other evidence." O'Dell v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 855, 858 (10th Cir. 1994). The standard "requires more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance." Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084. "Evidence is not substantial if it is overwhelmed by other evidence—particularly certain types of evidence (e.g., that offered by treating physicians)—or if it really constitutes not evidence but mere conclusion." Gossett v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 802, 805 (10th Cir. 1988) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). Moreover, "[a] finding of 'no substantial evidence' will be found only where there is a conspicuous absence of credible choices or no contrary medical evidence." Trimiar v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1326, 1329 (10th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Although the reviewing court considers "whether the ALJ followed the specific rules of law that must be followed in weighing particular types of evidence in disability cases," the court "will not reweigh the evidence or substitute [its] judgment for the Commissioner's." Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The court will "review only the sufficiency of the evidence." Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1257 (10th Cir. 2007). The court does not have to accept the Commissioner's findings mechanically but must "examine the record as a whole, including whatever in the record fairly detracts from the weight of the [Commissioner's] decision and, on that basis, determine if the substantiality of the evidence test has been met." Glenn v. Shalala, 21 F.3d 983, 984 (10th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "'The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's findings from being supported by substantial evidence,'" and the court may not "displace the agenc[y's] choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo.'" Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084 (quoting Zoltanksi v. FAA, 372 F.3d 1195, 1200 (10th Cir. 2004)).
In addition to a lack of substantial evidence, the Court may reverse where the Commission uses the wrong legal standards or the Commissioner fails to demonstrate reliance on the correct legal standards. See Glass v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1392, 1395 (10th Cir. 1994); Thompson v. Sullivan; 987 F.2d 1482, 1487 (10th Cir. 1993); Andrade v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 985 F.2d 1045, 1047 (10th Cir. 1993).
The Social Security Act ("Act") defines "disability" as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). Moreover, the Act considers an individual disabled "only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." Id. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B).
(5) The claimant possesses a residual functional capacity to perform other work in the national economy considering his or her age, education, and work experience.
See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The claimant has the initial burden of establishing the disability in the first four steps. Ray v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 222, 224 (10th Cir. 1989). At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant retains the ability to perform other work existing in the national economy. Id.
include: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician's opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ's attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); see Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300-01 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting Drapeau v. Massanari, 255 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001)).
To reject a medical opinion, the ALJ must provide "'specific, legitimate reasons.'" Drapeau, 255 F.3d at 1213 (quoting Miller v. Chater, 99 F.3d 972, 976 (10th Cir. 1996)). The ALJ's decision need not discuss explicitly all of the factors for each of the medical opinions. See Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that a lack of discussion of each factor does not prevent the court from according the decision meaningful review). When considering medical opinion evidence, the ALJ must weigh and resolve evidentiary conflicts and inconsistencies. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 399 (1971) (reflecting the ALJ's duty to resolve conflicting medical evidence).
The ALJ failed to evaluate mental limitation evidence from Dr. Duncan and Dr. Walker in the decision on remand. (See R. 533-35.) Dr. Duncan's opinions and notes aided the ALJ in determining Mr. Thompson suffered from mental impairments in the first decision. (R. 34.) Dr. Duncan evaluated Mr. Thompson and diagnosed Mr. Thompson with major depressive disorder and panic disorder. (R. 365.) Dr. Walker diagnosed Mr. Thompson with depression/anxiety. (R. 283.) In this decision, the ALJ found that Mr. Thompson's mental impairments non-severe. (R. 527-528.) Nevertheless, in determining the claimant's RFC, the ALJ must consider all of the claimant's medically determinable impairments, including those considered not "severe." See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(2).
after stating his conclusion that Ms. Wells' mental impairments were non-severe, the ALJ stated that "[t]hese findings do not result in further limitations in work-related functions in the [RFC] assessment below." He then reiterated his conclusion that the mental impairments were non-severe. The language used suggests that the ALJ may have relied on his step-two findings to conclude that Ms. Wells had no limitation based on her mental impairments. If so, this was inadequate under the regulations and the Commissioner's procedures.
Wells, 727 F.3d at 1069 (citation omitted).
In the instant case, the ALJ never mentions the mental impairments again after finding them non-severe. (See R. 529-35.) In the first decision, the ALJ found Mr. Thompson could only perform non-skilled work because of "[m]ild limitations on his ability to concentrate, perform duties within a schedule, sustain routine without supervision, interact with the general public, and deal with stress." (R. 32, 81.) While the prior decision does not bind the ALJ, it demonstrates that an ALJ could find mental limitations that would prevent Mr. Thompson from performing his prior relevant work as an order clerk—a semi-skilled job. At that point, the ALJ would have to proceed to step five in the analysis, which he did do in the decision. Counsel for the Commissioner and counsel for Mr. Thompson agree that the ALJ's finding regarding a final assembler in the first decision cannot provide a basis to find harmless error because the physical restrictions in the two decisions differ. The combination of a failure to even mention Dr. Duncan along with the lack of any analysis of mental impairments in the RFC consideration convinces the Court the ALJ committed reversible error.
Mr. Thompson next argues the ALJ did not evaluate his credibility properly. (Pl.'s Opening Br. 9, ECF No. 17.) The Court agrees.
the levels of medication and their effectiveness, the extensiveness of the attempts (medical or nonmedical) to obtain relief, the frequency of medical contacts, the nature of daily activities, subjective measures of credibility that are peculiarly within the judgment of the ALJ, the motivation of and relationship between the claimant and other witnesses, and the consistency or compatibility of nonmedical testimony with objective medical evidence.
Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). But this analysis "does not require a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence. So long as the ALJ sets forth the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating the claimant's credibility, the dictates of Kepler are satisfied." Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368, 1372 (10th Cir. 2000).
The ALJ found one could reasonably expect Mr. Thompson's medically determinable impairments to cause the alleged symptoms; however, the ALJ found Mr. Thompson's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms lacked credibility. (R. 530.) The ALJ discounted Mr. Thompson's credibility regarding the pain he experienced due in part to drug seeking behavior. (R. 532). The ALJ did so because he, as the Commissioner concedes, incorrectly believed Mr. Thompson violated a medication contract with Dr. Walker. (R. 532, 738.) The ALJ also attributed secondary gain seeking behavior to Mr. Thompson because of this mistaken belief. (R. 532.) Such a view would necessarily cause the ALJ to discount Mr. Thompson's pain - a central issue in this disability determination. Thus while the ALJ gave other reasons for discrediting Mr. Thompson, the Court cannot separate out the impact this error had on the ALJ's pain assessment.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's evaluation of Mr. Thompson's pain. On remand the ALJ should reevaluate Mr. Thompson's pain. Additionally, Mr. Thompson points to a number of other incomplete "facts" cited by the ALJ to discredit him. (Pl.'s Opening Br. 13-17, ECF No. 17.) As the ALJ will need to reconsider his opinion on remand, he should consider these points as well.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court REVERSES and REMANDS this matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
DATED this 1st of July, 2016.

References: v. 
 § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.