Opinion ID: 808708
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ALJ’s application of Luna factors

Text: Ms. Keyes-Zachary complains that the ALJ failed to discuss and apply properly the Luna factors for assessing credibility in evaluating her complaints of pain and other symptoms. The record shows, however, that the ALJ did assess a number of the Luna factors, tying them to evidence in the record, contrary to Ms. Keyes-Zachary’s contention that he failed to do so. The ALJ properly noted these facts: (1) Ms. Keyes-Zachary had undergone no surgery for her shoulder problems and none had been recommended for her; (2) she had also undergone no surgery for her neck or back problems; (3) she could sometimes rid herself of her headaches with aspirin alone; (4) in 2005 she had described her back pain as only “four” on a one-to-ten scale; (5) one of her treating physicians limited her use of the pain-killer Lortab because he did not want her to use - 16 - it routinely; and (6) another treating physician gave her Lortab on a one-time-only basis. The only Luna factor that Ms. Keyes-Zachary specifically identifies as not being discussed by the ALJ is her activities of daily living (ADLs). In his decision the ALJ discussed these activities as follows: With respect to activities of daily living, the claimant testified her bed “is the couch,” which she stated she “stays on all day.” The claimant stated her mother helps her with laundry, stating she puts them [sic] in, then her mother puts them [sic] in the dryer and then she sits on the couch and folds them [sic]. The claimant further testified she grocery shops, watches television, visits her father, and attends funerals at church. Id. at 470. The ALJ made several observations concerning the credibility of this testimony. First, he noted that “[t]he claimant has restricted her daily activities, but the restrictions appear to be self-imposed.” Id. at 475. Next, he stated that “the alleged effect of the claimant’s symptoms on [her] activities of daily living and basic task performance is not consistent with the total medical and non-medical evidence in the file.” Id. at 475-76. And he concluded: [T]he claimant described daily activities that are fairly limited, however, two factors weigh against considering these allegations to be strong evidence in favor of finding the claimant disabled. First, allegedly limited daily activities cannot be objectively verified with any reasonable degree of certainty. Secondly, even if the claimant’s daily activities are truly as limited as alleged, it is difficult to attribute that degree of limitation to the claimant’s medical condition, as opposed to other reasons, in view of the relatively weak medical evidence and other factors discussed in this decision. Overall, the claimant’s reported - 17 - limited daily activities are considered to be outweighed by the other factors discussed in this decision. Id. at 476. Thus, the ALJ did properly evaluate Ms. Keyes-Zachary’s activities of daily living, and at least generally tied his conclusions to the evidence. The only one of the above ALJ findings to which Ms. Keyes-Zachary specifically objects is his statement that her limited ADLs “cannot be objectively verified with any reasonable degree of certainty.” Id. Citing an unpublished case, Swanson v. Barnhart, 190 F. App’x 655, 657 (10th Cir. 2006), she contends that it is error for the ALJ to require objective confirmation of ADLs “as a standard of proof.” Aplt. Br. at 22. But there is subsequent Tenth Circuit published authority concerning this issue that is unfavorable to her position. In Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009), this court considered identical language used by an ALJ to discount the claimant’s credibility and concluded: [T]he ALJ’s statement that Claimant’s daily limitations could not be “objectively verified with any reasonable degree of certainty” did not state a standard by which the ALJ made his adverse determination of Claimant’s credibility. Rather, the ALJ’s statement was merely a common sense observation that the ALJ would not treat Claimant’s testimony as “strong evidence” of her disability due to his prior determination that Claimant’s testimony was not “fully credible.” Id. at 1070 (citations omitted). The same can be said here. The ALJ merely considered the lack of objective verification as a factor in assessing the value of Ms. Keyes-Zachary’s hearing - 18 - testimony concerning her limited daily activities. Reversal on this issue is inappropriate.