Court Opinion

ID: 9380112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 14:00:26.470323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:03.511414
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-3005     Document: 010110827976       Date Filed: 03/17/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           March 17, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  TROY BROOKS,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 22-3005
                                                     (D.C. No. 6:20-CV-01370-SAC)
  COMMISSIONER, SSA,                                            (D. Kan.)

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

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

       Troy Brooks appeals pro se from a district court order affirming the

 Commissioner’s denial of his applications for disability insurance and supplemental

 security income benefits. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and

 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), we affirm.

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent,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: 22-3005    Document: 010110827976         Date Filed: 03/17/2023      Page: 2

 I.    Background

       Mr. Brooks filed an application in October 2010, alleging he was disabled

 beginning in November 2008 when he was 20 years old. An administrative law judge

 (ALJ) denied his application in July 2012. Following a remand by the district court

 and two remands by the Appeals Council, an ALJ again denied Mr. Brooks’

 application in December 2019.

       Although Mr. Brooks had worked since the alleged onset date of his disability,

 the ALJ found that his reported earnings did not rise to the level of substantial

 gainful activity (SGA) for any year since that date. The ALJ found that Mr. Brooks

 has three medically determinable mental impairments that qualify as severe:

 attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, and learning disorder/dyslexia.

 The ALJ also considered his non-severe impairments, including post-traumatic stress

 disorder, mild asthma, and sleep disorder.

       According to the ALJ, Mr. Brooks has the residual functional capacity (RFC)

       to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the
       following non-exertional limitations: limited to simple, routine repetitive
       tasks that are limited to low stressors such as, slow-paced work, do not
       require multi-tasking; any have [sic] changes in tasks performed or
       locations of work; would work better in jobs that require non-verbal skills;
       and is limited to occasional interaction with co-workers, supervisors, and
       with the general public.

 R., Vol. 1 at 736. As relevant to this appeal, in determining Mr. Brooks’ RFC, the

 ALJ considered the medical opinions in the record, including a recent opinion by

 Dr. Thomas Bartlett, a psychological consultative examiner. The ALJ afforded

 Dr. Bartlett’s opinion “some weight,” id. at 743, and incorporated into Mr. Brooks’

                                              2
Appellate Case: 22-3005    Document: 010110827976         Date Filed: 03/17/2023    Page: 3

 RFC some, but not all, of the limitations in the doctor’s opinion. A vocational expert

 (VE) testified that an individual with Mr. Brooks’ RFC would be able to perform

 unskilled occupations such as kitchen helper, industrial cleaner, and lab equipment

 cleaner. Considering Mr. Brooks’ age, education, work experience, and RFC, the

 ALJ concluded he had not been under a disability from the alleged onset date through

 the date of the ALJ’s decision.

       After the Appeals Council rejected Mr. Brooks’ exceptions to the ALJ’s

 decision, he sought review in the district court, raising a single claim of error: that

 the ALJ failed to resolve inconsistencies between the limitations in Dr. Bartlett’s

 opinion and the mental RFC determination. More specifically, Mr. Brooks argued

 the ALJ insufficiently explained why he rejected marked and moderate limitations

 found by Dr. Bartlett.

       The district court held that the ALJ had incorporated in the RFC Dr. Bartlett’s

 moderate mental limitations by restricting Mr. Brooks to simple work that is routine

 and repetitive, involves limited stressors, is slow-paced, does not require

 multi-tasking, and involves few changes in tasks performed or work location. The

 court further held the ALJ otherwise provided a sufficient explanation for giving only

 some weight to Dr. Bartlett’s opinion. In particular, the ALJ had sufficiently

 explained his rejection of a marked limitation in Mr. Brooks’ ability to respond

 appropriately to usual work conditions and to changes in a routine work setting. The

 district court therefore affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.

                                             3
Appellate Case: 22-3005    Document: 010110827976        Date Filed: 03/17/2023    Page: 4

 II.   Discussion

       A.     Standards of Review

       “We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether the ALJ’s

 factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the

 correct legal standards were applied.” Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1161

 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is such

 relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

 conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Ultimately, the ALJ is entitled

 to resolve evidentiary conflicts, and this court cannot reweigh the evidence.

 See Allman v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 1326, 1333 (10th Cir. 2016); see also Oldham v.

 Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that “we may not displace the

 agency’s choice between two fairly conflicting views” (brackets and internal

 quotations marks omitted)).

       Although Mr. Brooks was represented by counsel throughout the

 administrative proceedings in this case and in the district court, he proceeds pro se in

 this appeal.1 We therefore liberally construe his appellate briefs. See Cummings v.

       1
          Mr. Brooks represents that he has not written his own briefs. Rather, he has
 relied on “pro bono help of family members, professionals from multiple areas and
 other concerned individuals who have worked with [him]” because “his advocates
 have not been able to find an attorney” to represent him in this appeal. Aplt. Opening
 Br. at 1. Based on these representations, it does not appear that any attorney has
 participated in the drafting of Mr. Brooks’ briefs. However, we caution that “any
 ghostwriting of an otherwise pro se brief must be acknowledged by the signature of
 the attorney involved.” Duran v. Carris, 238 F.3d 1268, 1273 (10th Cir. 2001).
                                            4
Appellate Case: 22-3005       Document: 010110827976        Date Filed: 03/17/2023     Page: 5

 Evans, 161 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 1998). “[B]ut we will not act as his advocate.”

 James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013).

           B.    Scope of Review

           “The scope of our review . . . is limited to the issues the claimant properly

 preserves in the district court and adequately presents on appeal[.]” Berna v. Chater,

 101 F.3d 631, 632 (10th Cir. 1996). We will not address an issue the appellant failed

 to raise in the district court unless he argues for plain-error review on appeal.

 See Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1130-31 (10th Cir. 2011). These

 waiver principles apply despite Mr. Brooks’ pro se status on appeal. See United

 States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 427 n.5 (10th Cir. 1995) (declining to address issue

 raised in a pro se supplemental brief in part because it was not raised in the district

 court).

           On appeal, Mr. Brooks asserts numerous claims of error in the ALJ’s decision.

 He argues the ALJ failed to correct errors the district court identified in remanding

 his case to the agency after the first ALJ decision in 2012, did not meaningfully

 consider all of the evidence in determining his RFC, made unreasonable inferences

 about the nature and extent of his part-time work, ignored VE testimony that

 supported his claim, and undervalued the entirety of the opinion evidence in the

 record. He also contends the ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by

 substantial evidence.

           As noted, however, Mr. Brooks chose to raise only one claim of error in the

 district court, challenging the sufficiency of the ALJ’s explanation of the weight

                                                5
Appellate Case: 22-3005    Document: 010110827976        Date Filed: 03/17/2023      Page: 6

 assigned to Dr. Bartlett’s opinion. See R., Vol. 2 at 28 (district court’s assessment

 that “plaintiff’s sole challenge on appeal is with the ALJ’s consideration of the

 consultative medical opinion of Dr. Bartlett”). Mr. Brooks argues our scope of

 review should nonetheless include his other contentions because his “RFC is the

 crucial issue in this case.” Aplt. Reply Br. at 7. But because he does not argue for

 plain-error review of his forfeited issues, we limit our review to his arguments related

 to the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Bartlett’s opinion that we conclude he has adequately

 presented based upon our liberal construction of his opening appeal brief.

       C.     Merits

       “It is the ALJ’s duty to give consideration to all the medical opinions in the

 record . . . [and to] discuss the weight he assigns to such opinions.” Keyes-Zachary,

 695 F.3d at 1161. “[T]he ALJ must consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R.

 § 404.1527(c) and give good reasons for the weight he assigns to the opinion.” Vigil

 v. Colvin, 805 F.3d 1199, 1202 (10th Cir. 2015).2 An ALJ may not, without

 explanation, adopt some of the restrictions in a medical opinion while rejecting

 others. See Haga v. Astrue, 482 F.3d 1205, 1208 (10th Cir. 2007).

       Although an ALJ must “adequately evaluate and discuss the medical-source

 evidence,” we will find his explanation is sufficient if we “can follow the

 adjudicator’s reasoning in conducting our review, and can determine that correct

 legal standards have been applied.” Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1166. “The more

       2
        New agency rules for evaluating medical opinions, effective as of March 27,
 2017, do not apply to Mr. Brooks’ disability claim, which was filed in 2010.
                                            6
Appellate Case: 22-3005    Document: 010110827976           Date Filed: 03/17/2023      Page: 7

 comprehensive the ALJ’s explanation, the easier our task; but we cannot insist on

 technical perfection” and we “exercise common sense.” Id.

                1.   Dr. Bartlett’s Opinion

       Dr. Bartlett performed a psychological consultative examination of Mr. Brooks

 in October 2019. The doctor completed a form on which he checked boxes indicating

 his assessment of Mr. Brooks’ mental restrictions, which included moderate, marked,

 and extreme limitations.3 As relevant to this appeal, Dr. Bartlett stated that

 Mr. Brooks has a marked limitation in responding appropriately to usual work

 situations and to changes in a routine work setting. Dr. Bartlett indicated this opinion

 was based upon Mr. Brooks’ “negative attitude and poor social skills.” R., Vol. 1 at

 1640. In the narrative portion of his opinion, Dr. Bartlett stated the following:

       Mr. Brooks can complete simple instructions. He would not [b]e a good
       candidate for interacting with the public due to his irritability. Coworkers
       and supervisors might struggle with his irritable and negative attitude. . . .
       His depression is likely to interfere with his ability to perform in a
       consistent and ongoing manner in a full-time occupational setting.

 Id. at 1644.

       3
          There is no dispute that the ALJ incorporated Dr. Bartlett’s extreme
 limitations related to complex instructions and work-related decisions into
 Mr. Brooks’ RFC by limiting him to simple, routine, repetitive tasks. And
 Mr. Brooks does not repeat on appeal the argument he raised in the district court that
 the ALJ failed to explain why his RFC omits the moderate limitations in
 Dr. Bartlett’s opinion. As noted, the district court found that the RFC included those
 limitations.

                                              7
Appellate Case: 22-3005    Document: 010110827976         Date Filed: 03/17/2023        Page: 8

              2.     The ALJ’s Assessment of Dr. Bartlett’s Opinion

       The ALJ described Dr. Bartlett’s report regarding his 2019 psychological

 consultative examination of Mr. Brooks as follows:

       Consistent with the claimant’s report of a depressed mood, Dr. Bartlett
       reported the claimant came across as depressed and irritable, impatient and
       annoyed. Dr. Bartlett reported the claimant exhibited marginal eye contact
       and social skills, but that they were not inappropriate. H[e] reported the
       claimant exhibited difficulty with two tasks that demanded mental control.
       In addition, . . . his general cognitive ability, as estimated by the WAIS-IV,
       was in the borderline range (FSIQ=72). His general verbal comprehension
       abilities were in the borderline range (VCI=76), and his general perceptual
       reasoning abilities continued to be in the low average range (PRI=73).
       Based on his examination and review, Dr. Bartlett diagnosed the claimant
       with ADHD predominantly inattentive presentation and persistent
       depressive disorder with anxious distress. Notably, Dr. Bartlett reported
       the claimant displayed a wide variety of behaviors, but reported he had only
       been treated with Zoloft and one other pill for about two years. He also
       reported activities of daily living including the ability to drive, to perform
       basic computer skills, to use a cell phone and social media, to manage his
       own finances, and to perform all personal care tasks independently. In
       addition, he reported helping to care for his two year old daughter. He also
       reported hobbies and interests including playing basketball, watching his
       daughter, and writing music. Moreover, he reported working in a barber
       shop averaging about forty-hours per month.

 R., Vol. 1 at 739-40 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

       The ALJ concluded that the clinical findings in the record, including

 Dr. Bartlett’s, supported some mental limitations, but that the level of Mr. Brooks’

 treatment did not suggest that he has disabling limitations. In particular, Mr. Brooks

 had not been prescribed ADHD medication, had not required inpatient care because

 of a mental health crisis, and had not regularly exhibited significant symptoms such

 as panic attacks, suicidal ideations with plan, or psychosis. The ALJ stated that

 “[o]ne would expect objective abnormalities in at least some of these areas if the

                                             8
Appellate Case: 22-3005    Document: 010110827976        Date Filed: 03/17/2023    Page: 9

 claimant were truly experiencing disabling anxiety or panic.” Id. at 740. The ALJ

 elsewhere concluded that “the record also reveals that the treatment has been

 generally successful in controlling [Mr. Brooks’] symptoms,” noting that “he testified

 that his medications help with depression and anxiety.” Id. at 738.

       The ALJ also concluded that Mr. Brooks’ descriptions of his daily activities

 were “not limited to the extent one would expect to associate with disabling mental

 impairments.” Id. at 737. The ALJ noted that Mr. Brooks can independently perform

 personal care tasks, cook simple meals, shop, drive, do laundry, perform household

 repairs, iron, and mow the yard. He also helped to care for his two-year-old

 daughter. In addition, Mr. Brooks had completed barber school, which required 1500

 hours of course work. Although he initially could not pass the written licensing tests,

 with tutoring and accommodations he passed the examinations with high scores,

 according to a CDI Report.4 Mr. Brooks had also maintained his barber license

 during all but two years since 2013, and he worked part-time as a barber

 approximately five hours per day, five days per week.

       In considering the medical opinion evidence, the ALJ assessed Dr. Bartlett’s

 opinion as follows:

       Based on his evaluation and review of the record, Dr. Bartlett opined the
       claimant had moderate limitations in understanding, remembering, carrying
       out, and making simple judgment on simple instructions. He further opined

       4
          “The Cooperative Disability Investigations (CDI) program is a key anti-fraud
 initiative that combats fraud within Social Security disability programs.” Off. of the
 Inspector Gen., Soc. Sec. Admin., Cooperative Disability Investigations,
 https://oig.ssa.gov/cdi/ (last visited Mar. 7, 2023).

                                           9
Appellate Case: 22-3005     Document: 010110827976         Date Filed: 03/17/2023         Page: 10

        the claimant had marked limitations[5] in these areas for complex
        instructions and work-related decisions. He also opined the claimant had
        mostly moderate limitations in his ability to interact with others, but that he
        had marked limitations in his ability to respond appropriately to usual work
        situations and to changes in routine. Dr. Bartlett’s opinion is afforded some
        weight. The undersigned notes that Dr. Bartlett[’s] opinion that the
        claimant can complete simple instructions is generally consistent with the
        objective evidence of record, including Dr. Bartlett’s own evaluation and
        test results, which indicate the claimant is generally functioning in the
        borderline range. His opinion, and the test results, are also consistent with
        the claimant’s ability to perform a range of daily activities independently.
        However, his marked limitation in responding to usual work situations and
        to changes in work settings is not completely supported by the record. For
        example, he based some of his limitations due to a “negative attitude”, not
        clinical findings and also indicated that the testing may not have been fully
        reliable. While there are reports by the claimant’s employer through
        Dr. Suderman’s observations[6] that the claimant is routinely late for work
        and has had some clients not return due to poor haircuts, the fact remains
        that the claimant continues to work as a barber for approximately five hours
        per day, five days per week. Moreover, the CDI Investigative report shows
        that the claimant has been able to maintain his license, and perform skilled
        artistic [hair] designs.

  Id. at 743-44 (citations omitted).

        5
           Dr. Bartlett opined that Mr. Brooks had extreme, rather than marked,
  limitations in these areas. But as noted, there is no dispute that Mr. Brooks’ RFC
  accounted for Dr. Bartlett’s extreme limitations with regard to complex work.
        6
          Mr. Brooks had been assessed and counseled at Dyslexia and Learning
  Differences Center by Linn Suderman and Robert Suderman. The ALJ gave little
  weight to the Sudermans’ opinions, which found that Mr. Brooks had moderate,
  marked, and extreme limitations in certain areas. The ALJ found the marked and
  extreme limitations were not supported by the testing Mr. Brooks underwent, his
  continued work activity, and his activities of daily living. The ALJ added, “Notably,
  these opinions are primarily based on observations and inquiries to third parties,
  including the claimant’s parents and employer, who are not acceptable medical
  sources.” R., Vol. 1 at 742. The weight the ALJ assigned to the Sudermans’
  opinions is not within the scope of this appeal.
                                              10
Appellate Case: 22-3005     Document: 010110827976         Date Filed: 03/17/2023     Page: 11

         Thus, the ALJ provided the following reasons for giving only some weight to

  Dr. Bartlett’s opinion and for rejecting the doctor’s marked limitation on Mr. Brooks’

  ability to respond appropriately to usual work situations and to changes in the work

  setting:

      Although Dr. Bartlett’s clinical findings supported some mental limitations,
       the level of treatment Mr. Brooks underwent was not suggestive of him having
       disabling limitations.
      Mr. Brooks’ range of daily activities were not consistent with disabling
       limitations.
      Dr. Bartlett based some of his findings on Mr. Brooks’ negative attitude rather
       than clinical findings and indicated that his testing may not have been fully
       reliable.
      Although there was evidence that Mr. Brooks was routinely late for work at his
       barbershop job and some clients reported he had given poor haircuts, he
       continued to work as a barber for approximately five hours per day, five days
       per week, he has been able to maintain his barber license, and he can perform
       skilled artistic hair designs.

                3.     Mr. Brooks’ Contentions

                       a.     Unclear Rationale

         Mr. Brooks contends the ALJ’s reasons for giving Dr. Bartlett’s opinion only

  some weight were so unclear that the district court instead had to provide a rationale.

  He points to the district court’s statements that the ALJ’s decision “can be read” to

  explain why the ALJ adopted some of Dr. Bartlett’s restrictions and rejected others.

  R., Vol. 2 at 25-26. It is true that “[j]udicial review is limited to the reasons stated in

  the ALJ’s decision” and that a court may not “suppl[y] possible reasons for rejecting

  a physician’s opinion.” Carpenter v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 1264, 1267 (10th Cir. 2008).

  Be we are not persuaded that the ALJ’s decision lacks reasoning or that the district

  court supplied a post hoc rationale. The ALJ cited several reasons for rejecting
                                              11
Appellate Case: 22-3005      Document: 010110827976      Date Filed: 03/17/2023      Page: 12

  Dr. Bartlett’s marked limitation in responding to usual work situations and to

  changes in work settings, and we, like the district court, can follow his reasoning in

  conducting our review. See Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1166. This is not a case

  where the ALJ failed to explain how he weighed a medical opinion. Cf. Haga,

  482 F.3d at 1208.

                        b.    Negative Attitude and Marginal Effort in Testing

           The ALJ gave Dr. Bartlett’s opinion only some weight, in part, because he

  concluded the doctor had based some of his findings on Mr. Brooks’ negative attitude

  rather than clinical findings, and because the doctor questioned the accuracy of his

  testing on the ground that Mr. Brooks “does not appear to take the testing seriously

  and his effort is marginal.” R., Vol. 1 at 1643. Mr. Brooks argues the evidence

  shows he is unable to control his negative attitude, which “is the key reason he has

  never been able to keep a real job.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 6. He asserts that his

  “recurrent ‘negative attitude’ and ‘marginal effort’—whatever their cause may be—is

  at the heart of why he is not able and has not been able to do full-time work.” Id.

  at 11.

           These assertions, which are not accompanied by citations to the medical

  record, do not undermine the ALJ’s stated reasons. To the extent Mr. Brooks bases

  these contentions on his own or his family’s assessment of his work-related

  limitations, the ALJ considered his “assertions related to his inability to function due

  to mental deficits,” but the ALJ did not give them great weight “because the medical

  record does not support his allegations.” R., Vol. 1 at 741. The ALJ also considered

                                             12
Appellate Case: 22-3005     Document: 010110827976         Date Filed: 03/17/2023     Page: 13

  his family members’ testimony, found it was “merely cumulative of the claimant’s

  reports,” and gave it only “some weight . . . for the same reasons the claimant’s

  reports are found only somewhat consistent with the record.” Id. at 744. These

  findings by the ALJ are not within the scope of this appeal.

                       c.     Part-time Employment as a Barber

         While acknowledging his employer’s report that Mr. Brooks is routinely late

  for work and sometimes provides poor haircuts, the ALJ rejected Dr. Bartlett’s

  marked limitation on Mr. Brooks’ ability to respond appropriately to usual work

  situations and to changes in the work setting, in part, based upon his continued work

  as a barber for approximately five hours per day, five days per week and his ability to

  maintain his barber license and perform skilled artistic haircut designs. Elsewhere in

  the decision, the ALJ also noted that Mr. Brooks was able to complete barber school,

  which required 1500 hours of course work. Mr. Brooks challenges the ALJ’s

  reliance on his part-time work as a barber because he has done this work under

  special circumstances where his employer is a family friend and his father pays some

  or all of the rent for his barber chair. He also asserts that his barber job is intended to

  provide him with “therapeutic socialization.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 5 (internal

  quotation marks omitted). As the ALJ acknowledged, Mr. Brooks states that he has

  not maintained a predictable work schedule at his barber job.

         To the extent Mr. Brooks argues his part-time work as a barber is irrelevant to

  the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Bartlett’s opinion because it does not qualify as SGA, he

  is mistaken. The regulations provide that, “[e]ven if the work you have done was not

                                              13
Appellate Case: 22-3005     Document: 010110827976        Date Filed: 03/17/2023    Page: 14

  substantial gainful activity, it may show that you are able to do more work than you

  actually did.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1571 and 416.971. Mr. Brooks nonetheless argues

  his part-time work as a barber fails to demonstrate his ability to sustain full-time

  unskilled work. But the ALJ could conclude that Mr. Brooks’ ability to work

  part-time in a skilled job requiring significant interaction with his supervisor and the

  public, albeit with punctuality issues and some performance problems, was part of

  the evidence showing that he can do more work than he actually did if he were

  restricted to a simple, repetitive, slow-paced, low-stress job that does not require

  multi-tasking and involves only occasional social interaction.

                      d.     Unchallenged Reasons

        The ALJ also found that Mr. Brooks’ level of treatment and his activities of

  daily living were not consistent with disabling limitations. Mr. Brooks does not

  acknowledge either of these reasons for rejecting Dr. Bartlett’s marked limitation on

  his ability to respond appropriately to usual work situations and to changes in the

  work setting—a limitation he says would have resulted in a finding of disability.

  Thus, to the extent Mr. Brooks argues the ALJ’s rejection of that limitation lacks a

  substantial-evidence basis, he fails to argue or demonstrate that these two

  unchallenged reasons do not satisfy that standard.

        As Mr. Brooks recognizes, the record contains conflicting evidence regarding

  the extent of his work-related limitations. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 1 (stating “the

  experts who have evaluated him give contradictory causes and assessments of his

  condition”). “The ALJ was entitled to resolve such evidentiary conflicts and did so.”

                                             14
Appellate Case: 22-3005    Document: 010110827976       Date Filed: 03/17/2023   Page: 15

  Allman, 813 F.3d at 1333. The ALJ appropriately gave Dr. Bartlett’s opinion only

  some weight. “Concluding otherwise would require us to reweigh the evidence, a

  task we may not perform.” Id.

  III.   Conclusion

         We affirm the district court’s judgment.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Carolyn B. McHugh
                                             Circuit Judge

                                            15