Court Opinion

ID: 9931658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 17:00:56.19576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:15.736699
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-8019     Document: 010110997677       Date Filed: 02/09/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          February 9, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  CHARLES F. COPP,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                           No. 23-8019
                                                     (D.C. No. 2:22-CV-00046-SWS)
  COMMISSIONER, SSA,                                            (D. Wyo.)

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Charles F. Copp appeals from the district court’s decision upholding the denial

 of his application for disability insurance benefits. Exercising jurisdiction under

 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), we affirm.

                                     I. Background

       Mr. Copp applied for benefits in April 2011, alleging disability based on physical

 and mental impairments. The ALJ’s denial of his application was twice remanded—once

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
 except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It
 may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-8019     Document: 010110997677          Date Filed: 02/09/2024     Page: 2

 by the district court and once by the Social Security Administration Appeals Council—

 before the ALJ finally denied the application in a written decision in October 2019. The

 Appeals Council denied Mr. Copp’s request for review, thereby rendering the October

 2019 decision the final agency decision for purposes of judicial review.

        A. Medical Records and Other Evidence 1

        Mr. Copp alleges he was first diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2004. He has

 also been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, depression, ADHD, and

 polysubstance abuse. For several years he received treatment from Southwest

 Counseling Service, where he frequently saw psychologist Kayleen Logan.

        In May 2008, the month Mr. Copp alleges he became disabled, Ms. Logan

 reported Mr. Copp was on medications to help him sleep and stabilize his mood. She

 noted that his mood and thought content were normal, and that his thought process was

 organized. A few months later, Mr. Copp reported to Ms. Logan he was experiencing

 increased difficulty sleeping as well as racing thoughts, paranoia, depression, stress, and

 anger. Ms. Logan prescribed an antipsychotic medication.

        Later the same year, Mark Gibson, a Southwest psychologist, performed an

 evaluation in connection with Mr. Copp’s disability claim. Mr. Copp told Mr. Gibson he

        Mr. Copp alleges he became disabled as a result of back problems and mental
        1

 impairments. Because he does not challenge the ALJ’s evaluation of his back
 problems, we focus only on the records relevant to his mental impairments.

                                              2
Appellate Case: 23-8019      Document: 010110997677        Date Filed: 02/09/2024     Page: 3

 had a long history of abusing marijuana, methamphetamines, and pain pills. 2 Testing

 revealed Mr. Copp’s memory was in the low average to borderline range. Mr. Gibson

 concluded that “Mr. Copp has some obvious mental health issues that keep him from

 being able to function well in society.” Aplt. App. vol. 4 at 545.

        Mr. Copp’s bipolar symptoms improved throughout much of 2009, and he was

 observed to be calmer, less paranoid, and better at communicating. During one of his

 2009 visits, he told a counselor he was dependent on marijuana and spent $55 a month on

 drugs. He also said he had been offered a management position at Taco Bell, but that he

 was “not really interested.” Id. at 593. The counselor recorded that Mr. Copp showed

 “malingering traits . . . in which he is opposed to working, keeping a schedule and [is]

 more interest[ed] in illicit drug use.” Id.

        In January 2010, Mr. Copp reported increased depression due to situational

 factors, such as the anniversary of his father’s death. Ms. Logan therefore modified his

 medications. Later that summer, she again adjusted his medication after Mr. Copp again

 reported increased symptoms. By September, Mr. Copp reported significant

 improvement, including better mood and concentration. Treatment records throughout

 the rest of 2010, 2011, and early 2012 reflect that he generally showed organized thought

 processes and normal thought content, but often described situational depression.

        2
         Shortly after Mr. Gibson’s evaluation, another Southwest counselor noted
 that Mr. Copp had been arrested for marijuana possession and “may not be a reliable
 reporter” concerning drug and alcohol use. Aplt. App. vol. 4 at 597.

                                               3
Appellate Case: 23-8019     Document: 010110997677         Date Filed: 02/09/2024      Page: 4

        In September 2013, Mr. Copp saw Leah Muthuri, M.D. He reported he had

 stopped taking his bipolar medication in 2011 and was only taking a sleeping aid. He

 complained of a rash, which Dr. Muthuri attributed to anxiety and bipolar disorder. She

 prescribed Xanax. The next month, Mr. Copp reported he was having difficulty staying

 focused on his job (although the record does not reflect what that job was). Dr. Muthuri

 diagnosed ADHD and prescribed an additional medication. Mr. Copp reported a few

 weeks later that he was more focused and “ready to take [on] the challenges of the day.”

 Id. vol. 5 at 934. At all three visits, Dr. Muthuri reported Mr. Copp was cooperative with

 euthymic mood and normal speech and cognition.

        Augusto Jamias, M.D., examined Mr. Copp in March 2014, concerning purported

 pain following surgery. Dr. Jamias suspected Mr. Copp’s complaints were part of his

 “drug seeking behavior.” Id. vol. 10 at 2081. Concerned about narcotics dependence,

 Dr. Jamias recommended Mr. Copp see a specialist. Consistent with that

 recommendation, Mr. Copp saw Elina Chernyak, D.O., in September 2014. He told her

 he had used marijuana and methamphetamine daily for twenty-three years, and that

 “[a]ddiction consequences are related to financial problems, legal issues and work.” Id.

 at 2066. He declined in-patient detoxification. The next month Mr. Copp told

 Dr. Muthuri he had used illegal drugs in recent weeks and was unable to find work

 because he had marijuana in his system.

        In April 2015, Mr. Copp was arrested after a domestic dispute and taken to a

 hospital for evaluation. He admitted to using street drugs but evaded a question about the

 date of his last use. He also told the evaluating physician he had been working as a teller

                                              4
Appellate Case: 23-8019      Document: 010110997677          Date Filed: 02/09/2024      Page: 5

 at a horse track. The physician observed Mr. Copp had adequate concentration and intact

 memory. The physician concluded Mr. Copp was not psychotic or manic and

 recommended he be transferred to the jail.

        Mr. Copp served four months in jail, during which he was not given any

 medications and had no access to drugs or alcohol. At the end of his jail time, he was

 transferred to a psychiatric hospital for eight days in order to be evaluated for his

 competency to stand trial. David Carrington, M.D., examined Mr. Copp and determined

 his arrest was precipitated by drinking alcohol while taking a potent combination of

 Xanax, Ambien, Adderall, and Percocet. Dr. Carrington observed Mr. Copp to be

 “entirely cooperative, logical, goal directed and behaviorally, emotionally and cognitively

 appropriate.” Id. at 2219. He further found that Mr. Copp “demonstrated no signs or

 symptoms of mental illness or of cognitive impairments,” and that no psychotropic

 medications were indicated. Id.

        Mr. Copp returned to work in September 2017 as a heavy equipment operator in

 an oil field. That job lasted until June 2019. A manager later explained that in the last

 month of Mr. Copp’s employment, his attendance was “hit or miss.” Id. vol. 9 at 2031.

        B. Consultant Opinions Concerning Mr. Copp’s Disability Claim

        Several medical consultants evaluated Mr. Copp’s disability claim. In September

 2011, state agency psychology consultant E. Dean Schroeder concluded Mr. Copp had no

 more than moderate work-related limitations and therefore was not disabled. A year

 later, another state agency consultant, Greg Rich, reviewed Mr. Copp’s record and

 arrived at the same conclusion.

                                               5
Appellate Case: 23-8019     Document: 010110997677         Date Filed: 02/09/2024     Page: 6

        In September 2012, psychologist Mark Watt performed a consultative evaluation

 in connection with Mr. Copp’s disability claim. Mr. Copp told Mr. Watt he had

 experimented with a variety of substances including methamphetamine, and that he had

 been charged with marijuana possession in 2007 and 2012. Mr. Watt observed that

 Mr. Copp’s memory and ability to concentrate were in the low-average range. He

 concluded Mr. Copp could learn and remember simple instructions but might have

 difficulty carrying them out on a sustained basis; could deal with patient and

 understanding coworkers; and may have difficulty dealing with work stress and changes

 in a competitive work setting.

        At a May 2013 hearing, medical expert Kristy Farnsworth, Ph.D., testified that

 Mr. Copp had diagnoses of bipolar disorder, anti-social personality disorder, and

 polysubstance dependence. She opined that Mr. Copp had moderate limitations in

 complex interactions and interacting with the public and coworkers. She further opined,

 however, that Mr. Copp had no limitations in handling simple instructions, maintaining

 attention for two-hour periods, making simple work-related decisions, or dealing with

 simple workplace changes. Dr. Farnsworth concluded Mr. Copp had no more than

 moderate mental limitations. A year later at a supplemental hearing, she arrived at the

 same conclusion.

        Finally, at a July 2019 hearing, medical expert Michael Lace testified that

 Mr. Copp had diagnoses including bipolar disorder, depression, ADHD, personality

 disorder, and substance abuse disorders. He testified Mr. Copp had no more than

 moderate mental limitations, but that his work should be limited in the following ways:

                                              6
Appellate Case: 23-8019     Document: 010110997677         Date Filed: 02/09/2024    Page: 7

 only routine tasks, no fast-paced production lines, reduced interpersonal contact, and no

 access to alcohol, illegal drugs, or over-the-counter medications.

        C. Administrative Proceedings and District Court Judgment

        In her October 2019 decision, the ALJ followed the Commissioner’s five-step

 sequential evaluation process for evaluating disability claims. See 20 C.F.R.

 § 404.1520(a)(4). The ALJ found at step two that Mr. Copp had severe mental

 impairments, including bipolar disorder, personality disorders, polysubstance

 dependence, and amphetamine dependence. The ALJ then found at step three that, taking

 drug and alcohol abuse (“DAA”) into account, Mr. Copp is disabled because his mental

 impairments met two listings.

        As required by 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(C), the ALJ then evaluated whether

 Mr. Copp’s DAA was material to the finding of disability (i.e., whether Mr. Copp would

 still be disabled in the absence of DAA). The ALJ concluded that without DAA,

 Mr. Copp would no longer have marked limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace

 and therefore would no longer meet any listings for mental impairments. The ALJ then

 assessed Mr. Copp’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and found that Mr. Copp had

 the RFC to do unskilled work in the national economy in the absence of DAA. The ALJ

 therefore concluded that he was not disabled.

        Mr. Copp petitioned for review in the district court, contending the ALJ lacked

 substantial evidence to support her conclusion that DAA was material to the finding of

 disability. The district court rejected Mr. Copp’s argument and affirmed.

                                              7
Appellate Case: 23-8019    Document: 010110997677        Date Filed: 02/09/2024       Page: 8

                                     II. Discussion

       The issue in this case is whether the ALJ erred in concluding that Mr. Copp’s

 DAA was material to the finding of disability. Mr. Copp contends that conclusion is not

 supported by substantial evidence. We disagree.

       We review the ALJ’s decision to determine whether substantial evidence in the

 record as a whole supports the ALJ’s decision and whether the ALJ applied the correct

 legal standards. See Hendron v. Colvin, 767 F.3d 951, 954 (10th Cir. 2014).

 “Substantial evidence” is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept

 as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401

 (1971) (internal quotation marks omitted). This “threshold . . . is not high.” Biestek

 v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019). “Evidence is insubstantial if it is

 overwhelmingly contradicted by other evidence.” O’Dell v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 855,

 858 (10th Cir. 1994). We may neither reweigh evidence nor substitute our judgment

 for the Commissioner’s. Hendron, 767 F.3d at 954.

       The Social Security Act provides that “[a]n individual shall not be considered

 to be disabled for purposes of this subchapter if alcoholism or drug addiction would

 (but for this subparagraph) be a contributing factor material to the Commissioner’s

 determination that the individual is disabled.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(C). “A drug or

 alcohol addiction is a contributing factor if the claimant’s remaining limitations

 would not be disabling in the absence of drugs or alcohol.” Grogan v. Barnhart,

 399 F.3d 1257, 1264 (10th Cir. 2005). The key issue, in other words, is whether a

                                            8
Appellate Case: 23-8019    Document: 010110997677         Date Filed: 02/09/2024     Page: 9

 claimant would still be found disabled if they stopped using substances. 20 C.F.R.

 §§ 404.1535(b)(1). 3

       In a Social Security Ruling (SSR), the Commissioner provided additional

 guidance on how to determine whether a claimant would still be disabled in the

 absence of DAA. See SSR 13-2P, 2013 WL 621536 (Feb. 20, 2013). Although

 “social security rulings do not carry the force and effect of law[,] [t]hey are entitled

 to deference . . . because they constitute Social Security Administration

 interpretations of its own regulations and the statute which it administers.” Andrade

 v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 985 F.2d 1045, 1051 (10th Cir. 1993) (citation

 and internal quotation marks omitted). Relevant to this case, SSR 13-2P states that

 “[a]djudicators may draw inferences” from the claimant’s periods of abstinence from

 drugs and alcohol, depending on the length of the abstinence, how recently it

 occurred, and whether the severity of the co-occurring impairment or impairments

 increased after the abstinence ended. 2013 WL 621536, at *12, § 9(b). This is

 consistent with our observation that DAA is a contributing factor if the claimant

 would not be disabled absent DAA. Grogan, 399 F.3d at 1264.

       3
         The statute does not specify who bears the burden of proof on DAA
 materiality, but Social Security Ruling 13-2P states that “the claimant continues to
 have the burden of proving disability throughout the DAA materiality analysis.”
 SSR 13-2P, 2013 WL 621536, at *4, § 5(a) (Feb. 20, 2013). Other circuits that have
 expressly considered this question agree that the claimant bears this burden. See,
 e.g., Cage v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 692 F.3d 118, 123 (2d Cir. 2012) (listing cases).
 We need not decide this question here, however, because we would affirm regardless
 of which party bore the burden.
                                             9
Appellate Case: 23-8019      Document: 010110997677       Date Filed: 02/09/2024    Page: 10

        SSR 13-2P further cautions, however, that “[i]mprovement in a co-occurring

  mental disorder in a highly structured treatment setting, such as a hospital or

  substance abuse rehabilitation center, may be due at least in part to treatment for the

  co-occurring mental disorder, not (or not entirely) the cessation of substance use.”

  2013 WL 621536, at *12, § 9(d)(i). Thus, evidence is needed “from outside of such

  highly structured treatment settings demonstrating that the claimant’s co-occurring

  mental disorder(s) has improved . . . with abstinence.” Id. at *13, § 9(d)(iii). Again,

  this is consistent with our case law. For example, in McGoffin v. Barnhart, 288 F.3d

  1248 (10th Cir. 2002), we rejected an ALJ’s reliance on an assessment of the

  claimant that occurred during a six-week period of sobriety at a rehabilitation

  facility, because “she was in a structured environment there, highly medicated, and in

  intensive therapy, factors that also presumably contributed to her alleged improved

  condition.” Id. at 1253.

        In this case, the ALJ identified a four-month period of abstinence that began

  with Mr. Copp’s arrest in April 2015. After four months in jail with no medication

  and no access to drugs or alcohol, Mr. Copp was hospitalized at a mental health

  facility for eight days in order to be evaluated for his competency to stand trial.

  During his evaluation, he reported that he “has been without suicidal ideation or any

  significant emotional or cognitive difficulties.” Aplt. App. vol. 10 at 2219. The

  examining physician observed that Mr. Copp was “behaviorally, emotionally and

  cognitively appropriate” and “demonstrated no signs or symptoms of mental illness

                                             10
Appellate Case: 23-8019    Document: 010110997677        Date Filed: 02/09/2024      Page: 11

  or of cognitive impairments,” despite not having been prescribed psychotropic

  medications for four months. Id. The physician further observed:

        [Mr. Copp’s] speech is of normal rate and volume and is clearly
        understandable. His mood upon admission and throughout his stay was
        “good” and his affect or observable range of emotional expression was
        euthymic or within normal range. Mr. Copp’s thought processes during
        his hospitalization were consistently logical, linear and goal oriented.
        His thought content has been consistently negative for any auditory or
        visual hallucinations and he denied any thoughts or plans of harming
        himself or others either actively or passively. At no time has he
        expressed any bizarre, paranoid, or delusional beliefs, thoughts or ideas.

  Id. at 2219-20. These observations, along with the abundant evidence of Mr. Copp’s

  history of substance abuse, were “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

  accept as adequate to support [the ALJ’s] conclusion,” Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401

  (internal quotation marks omitted).

        Mr. Copp nonetheless argues the ALJ erred in relying on the 2015 evaluation.

  He contends that because “the mental health facility was a highly structured

  environment,” the period of abstinence “does not reveal anything about how [he]

  would behave outside of that structure.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 14. In support, he cites

  Salazar v. Barnhart, 468 F.3d 615 (10th Cir. 2006). That case, however, is

  distinguishable. In Salazar, the court observed that after the claimant’s forty days of

  sobriety, the record actually showed that “her mental problems alone were so severe

  that she needed to be hospitalized.” Id. at 624. “[I]t was after five days in a

  structured environment and receiving antipsychotic medication that her outlook

  improved.” Id. (emphasis added). By contrast, Mr. Copp’s period of sobriety was

  more than four months, the vast majority of which was not in a hospital, and he

                                             11
Appellate Case: 23-8019     Document: 010110997677        Date Filed: 02/09/2024        Page: 12

  received no medications during that entire period. 4 And Mr. Copp was transferred to

  a hospital after four months of abstinence in jail not because of mental problems but

  to be evaluated for his competence to stand trial—the result of which was that the

  examining physician concluded Mr. Copp “demonstrated no signs or symptoms of

  mental illness or of cognitive impairments.” Aplt. App. vol. 10 at 2219.

        Mr. Copp also argues the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial

  evidence because no medical consultant found DAA was material to his disability.

  He faults the ALJ, for example, for failing to ask a medical expert whether DAA

  contributed materially to Mr. Copp’s mental impairments. The question of DAA

  materiality, however, is “reserved to the Commissioner.” SSR 13-2P, 2013 WL

  21536, at *8, § 6(c)(ii), n.19; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (issues that are

  dispositive of a case are reserved to the Commissioner). Therefore, SSR 13-2P

  directs that ALJs “will not ask a treating source, a CE provider, a medical expert, or

  any other source for an opinion about whether DAA is material.” SSR 13-2P,

  2013 WL 621536, at *8, § 6(c)(ii), n.19. Indeed, given the lack of “any research data

  that . . . can [be] use[d] to predict reliably” whether a claimant’s mental impairments

  would improve in the absence of DAA, id. at *9, § 7(a), the Commissioner directs

  ALJs “not [to] ask [medical experts] for projections,” id. at *8, § 6(c)(ii), n.19.

        4
           Relatedly, Mr. Copp argues there is no evidence he was on drugs or alcohol
  in the period immediately preceding his arrest. To the contrary, the record reflects
  that the incident giving rise to his arrest in April 2015 was precipitated by his
  combining alcohol with Xanax, Ambien, Adderall, and Percocet.

                                             12
Appellate Case: 23-8019    Document: 010110997677        Date Filed: 02/09/2024     Page: 13

        SSR 13-2P replaced guidance the Social Security Administration (SSA) had

  issued in a teletype emergency message in 1996. See Office of Disability, SSA,

  “Questions and Answers Concerning DAA from the 07/02/96 Teleconference—

  Medical Adjudicators, EM-96200 (Aug. 30, 1996) (“the Teletype”), https://www.

  masslegalservices.org/system/files/library/daa-qa.htm. Mr. Copp argues the Teletype

  mandates a finding that DAA is not material when a medical expert cannot project

  what limitations would remain if the claimant stopped using drugs and alcohol. See

  id., ¶ 27. Mr. Copp waived that argument by failing to present it to the district court.

  See FDIC v. Noel, 177 F.3d 911, 915 (10th Cir. 1999). In any case, the Teletype was

  rendered obsolete by SSR 13-2P, see SSR 13-2P, 2013 WL 621536, at *1, and the

  ALJ properly applied the rule applicable at the time of her decision.

        Finally, Mr. Copp argues the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial

  evidence because some medical consultants “stated that DAA was not material.”

  Aplt. Opening Br. at 11. This argument misinterprets what the consultants said. For

  example, one of the medical experts the SSA hired, Dr. Farnsworth reviewed the

  medical records and opined that “DAA is not an issue.” Aplt. App. vol. 5 at 923.

  But Dr. Farnsworth was not opining about DAA materiality within the meaning of

  42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(C)—which, in any event, is a matter reserved to the

  Commissioner. Rather, the record makes clear that Dr. Farnsworth concluded DAA

  was irrelevant because even taking DAA into consideration, Mr. Copp was only

  moderately impaired. See Aplt. App. vol. 1 at 136-37. The same was true of

  other consultants. E.g., id. at 199, 203-05, 207 (concluding mental impairments

                                             13
Appellate Case: 23-8019   Document: 010110997677       Date Filed: 02/09/2024   Page: 14

  and drug abuse issues were not disabling and therefore “DAA material determination

  is not required”).

                                   III. Conclusion

        For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is affirmed.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Gregory A. Phillips
                                            Circuit Judge

                                           14