Opinion ID: 158426
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Glasco

Text: Mr. Atkinson argues that the ALJ’s RFC determination is flawed because he failed to mention all of the moderate limitations found by Dr. Glasco. For instance, the ALJ did not mention that Dr. Glasco found moderate limitations in Mr. Atkinson’s abilities “to maintain attention and concentration for extended periods” and “to complete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms.” Aplt. App., Vol. 1 at 170-71. This argument fails for two reasons. First, Mr. Atkinson did not raise it in the district court, and we generally decline to consider arguments made for the first time on appeal. See Crow v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir. 1994). Second, even if we were to consider the argument, the ALJ accepted Dr. Glasco’s ultimate opinion that all of Mr. Atkinson’s limitations would not preclude non-complex work. Therefore, the fact that the ALJ did not discuss every single limitation used by Dr. Glasco to reach his ultimate opinion is not problematic. See Clifton -6- v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009-10 (10th Cir. 1996) (stating that while an ALJ must consider all of the evidence in the record, nothing requires the discussion of every piece of evidence). Mr. Atkinson also argues that the ALJ did not take into account Dr. Glasco’s opinion that he could not work closely with supervisors. While the ALJ’s written decision references Dr. Glasco’s opinion only as it relates to coworkers, we conclude that the omission of “supervisors” is harmless. Specifically, the ALJ used both “co-workers” and “supervisors” when questioning the VE about the jobs the VE had identified in the national economy as being within the reach of a hypothetical claimant sharing Mr. Atkinson’s RFC. Aplt. App., Vol. 1 at 40-41. Because the ALJ’s decision relies on the VE’s testimony, it adequately accounts for Dr. Glasco’s opinion that Mr. Atkinson should not work closely with either co-workers or supervisors. 2 2 Mr. Atkinson argues that the VE’s testimony about jobs in the national economy matching his RFC was flawed because the hypothetical question posed to the VE did not include all of the moderate limitations that Dr. Glasco identified. But like the ALJ’s written decision, the hypothetical posed to the VE tracked Dr. Glasco’s ultimate conclusions about Mr. Atkinson’s limitations and ability to do non-complex work. Further, the hypothetical included the environmental and machinery limitations identified by Dr. Finnoff. We conclude that the ALJ’s hypothetical adequately reflected the “impairments and limitations that are borne out by the evidentiary record.” Decker v. Chater, 86 F.3d 953, 955 (10th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). -7-