Opinion ID: 172415
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Severe Mental Impairment

Text: Ms. Warner had the burden at step two to present evidence that she “has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments.” Id. (quotation omitted). “[W]hile the showing a claimant must make at step two is de minimis, a showing of the mere presence of a condition is not sufficient.” Cowan v. Astrue, 552 F.3d 1182, 1186 (10th Cir. 2008). An impairment is “not severe if it does not significantly limit [a claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a). See also Williamson v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1097, 1100 (10th Cir. 2003) (“[A] claimed ‘physical or mental impairment must be of a nature and degree of severity sufficient to justify its consideration as the cause of failure to obtain any substantial gainful work.’”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 1987, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1954 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3710, 3730 (emphasis added)). Basic work activities are the “abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs” and include the facility to understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions; use judgment; respond appropriately -4- to supervisors, co-workers, and usual work situations; and deal with changes in a routine work setting. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b)(3)-(6). The ALJ rejected Ms. Warner’s claim that her mental impairment was severe. Reviewing the medical records, the ALJ summarized consulting psychologist’s and psychiatrist’s observations that Ms. Warner “has mild restrictions of activities of daily living; mild difficulties in maintaining social functioning; and mild difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence or pace; with no episodes of decompensation of extended duration.” Aplt. App. at 17. The consultants also “noted the claimant had [a] history of anxiety and depression for which medication . . . had been prescribed,” but “anticipated improvement with treatment.” Id. At the hearing, Ms. Warner testified that she takes a prescription antidepressant, but stated that she ceased regular counseling in 1995 or 1996, and that she had not “talked to [her counselor] in quite a while.” Id. at 352. Relying primarily on the consultants’ determinations, the ALJ concluded that her depression did not limit Ms. Warner’s ability to work. In her appellate brief, Ms. Warner points to the notations of medical providers that she appeared depressed or anxious; an examining psychiatrist’s diagnosis of major depression secondary to chronic illness; and a Global Assessment of Functioning rating of 55 (indicating “moderate symptoms” in an “individual’s overall level of functioning,” Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116, 1122 n.3 (10th Cir. 2004)). She does not specifically challenge the ALJ’s -5- determination that her mental impairment did not significantly limit her ability to perform basic work activities. This court does not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084. And our review of the record convinces us that substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s step-two determination with regard to Ms. Warner’s mental impairment.