Opinion ID: 158426
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Robbins

Text: Mr. Atkinson next contends that the ALJ failed to indicate how Dr. Robbins’s opinions were factored into his RFC determination. In the district court, this argument focused on the ALJ’s failure to discuss the GAF score in his written decision. To the extent Mr. Atkinson seeks on appeal to expand his argument beyond the GAF score, we decline to consider it. See Crow, 40 F.3d at 324. While a GAF score of 44 can indicate serious functional impairments in social, occupational or educational settings, see Pisciotta v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 1074, 1076 n.1 (10th Cir. 2007), nothing in Dr. Robbins’s report indicates that the score undermines the ALJ’s RFC determination or otherwise indicates an impairment that would seriously interfere with Mr. Atkinson’s ability to work. Indeed, Dr. Robbins offered no explanation as to how she calculated the score or how it impacted Mr. Atkinson’s functional abilities. By itself, a GAF score “is not essential to the RFC’s accuracy.” Howard v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235, 241 (6th Cir. 2002). It was enough that the ALJ discussed the other aspects of Dr. Robbins’s report, and he gave no indication that he rejected any part of it.