Court Opinion

ID: 9951068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 16:00:48.81718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:05.274266
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-8023     Document: 010111016484       Date Filed: 03/15/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           March 15, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  ANGLIA LURRELLA JAMES,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 23-8023
                                                     (D.C. No. 2:22-CV-00077-NDF)
  COMMISSIONER, SSA,                                            (D. Wyo.)

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

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

       Anglia Lurrella James appeals the district court’s order affirming the

 Commissioner’s decision to deny her application for social security disability

 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent,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: 23-8023    Document: 010111016484        Date Filed: 03/15/2024    Page: 2

                          PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       James alleged a disability onset date of August 9, 2014, due to issues with her

 shoulders. Her applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. Following

 a hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that James was not disabled from

 the onset date through December 31, 2019—the last day insured—because she could

 perform a range of light work with postural, manipulative, and environmental

 limitations. In making this finding, the ALJ acknowledged James’ testimony that due

 to medication side effects she was unable to complete tasks and spent much of the

 day lying down; however, he found her testimony was not supported by the record

 and therefore, he did not include these alleged limitations in his determination of her

 residual functional capacity (RFC).1 Specifically, he found that although her

 “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the

 alleged symptoms, . . . [her] statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and

 limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical

 evidence and other evidence in the record.” Aplt. App. at 27.

       After the Appeals Council denied review, James timely filed a complaint in the

 district court, raising a single claim of error: Whether the ALJ’s finding that James

 “was not ‘disabled’ . . . [was] supported by substantial evidence where [the ALJ] did

 not recognize that the ‘heavy medications’ prescribed by the claimant’s physicians

       1
         A claimant’s RFC is her ability to do physical and mental work activities
 on a sustained basis despite limitations from impairments. See 20 C.F.R.
 § 404.1545(a)(1).
                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-8023    Document: 010111016484         Date Filed: 03/15/2024    Page: 3

 for pain caused her to be sedated, drowsy, subject to dizziness and unable to work for

 up to two hours a day excluding work breaks and lunch.” Id. at 59 (internal quotation

 marks omitted). The court affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.

       On appeal, James raises the same argument of error that she made in district

 court—the ALJ failed to include the alleged side effects of pain medications in

 determining James’ RFC.

                               STANDARD OF REVIEW

       We review the district court’s decision de novo, applying the same standards it

 applied. See Hendron v. Colvin, 767 F.3d 951, 954 (10th Cir. 2014). We thus review

 the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether substantial evidence in the record

 as a whole supports the factual findings and whether the correct legal standards were

 applied. See id. Substantial evidence “means 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 for

 such evidentiary sufficiency is not high.” Biestek v. Berryhill, --- U.S. ---, 139 S. Ct.

 1148, 1154 (2019).

       In conducting our review, we may neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute

 our judgment for the Commissioner’s. See Hendron, 767 F.3d at 954. Thus, “[t]he

 possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not

 prevent [the Commissioner’s] findings from being supported by substantial

 evidence.” Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation

 marks omitted).

                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-8023    Document: 010111016484       Date Filed: 03/15/2024    Page: 4

                                   THE EVIDENCE

       In 2014, James injured her left shoulder in a work-related incident. An MRI

 showed degenerative changes and damage to a tendon. After conservative treatments

 failed, she underwent surgery in 2015. During her recovery, James used various

 narcotic medications to manage her pain with only minor side effects. And despite

 using narcotic pain medications, she remained alert and oriented. Several months

 after the surgery, her surgeon stated that James was at maximum medical

 improvement and could return to work without restrictions. Not long thereafter, she

 was examined by a different physician who agreed that James should be released to

 work with no restrictions; however, she did not return to work.

       Instead, throughout the remainder of 2015 and 2016, James sought treatment

 with multiple providers, including two orthopedic specialists. She intermittently

 used narcotic pain medications, with limited reports of nausea or other side effects.

 During this time, various physicians continued to advise James to go back to work at

 some level. For example, one doctor advised that James could perform light to

 medium work provided she did not use her arm repetitively and another reported that

 she could return to light duty work with no lifting over twenty pounds.

       In 2017, James began pain management services with a physician assistant

 (PA). She told him that she had not been on pain medications for approximately two

 years but mentioned that Norco and Percocet had been effective in the past to treat

 her pain. Over the next few months, the PA prescribed several different opioids. On

 the handful of occasions when James mentioned issues with sedation or nausea, the

                                            4
Appellate Case: 23-8023    Document: 010111016484        Date Filed: 03/15/2024     Page: 5

 PA changed her medication. More often, however, James denied any medication side

 effects. Ultimately, the PA settled on Percocet as the most effective pain reliever.

 The PA consistently observed that James was alert and oriented during her office

 visits and displayed no mental abnormalities.

       Throughout 2018, James was seen by the PA and remained on Percocet for

 pain control. And although she reported variations in the level of pain, she described

 the pain as stable in character and distribution and admitted that medication helped

 her symptoms. She continued to deny medication side effects and did not mention

 ongoing issues with nausea or sedation.

       After seeking an opinion from a different surgeon, James underwent a second

 shoulder surgery in late 2018. James remained on Percocet following the surgery.

 On a few occasions during her follow-up visits, she mentioned stomach issues;

 however, she mostly denied any other side effects. She was described as alert and

 oriented during her office visits with no mental deficiencies noted.

       In mid-2018 and mid-2019, James was evaluated by a psychologist in relation

 to her pain-management treatment. In both reports, James was described as alert,

 oriented, and articulate, and did not exhibit any mental status deficits such as

 lessened awareness or disorganized thinking. On December 31, 2019—her date last

 insured—James was still on Percocet with no specific complaints of side effects.

       In early 2020, James was placed at maximum medical improvement, although

 the surgeon stated that she could not perform a labor-intensive job and most likely

                                            5
Appellate Case: 23-8023    Document: 010111016484        Date Filed: 03/15/2024    Page: 6

 could not lift more than ten to fifteen pounds. Shortly thereafter, James filed for

 disability benefits.

        As part of her claim, in April 2020 James completed a report in which she

 described her activities of daily living. She admitted that she was able to prepare

 simple meals, clean, drive, go out alone, shop, handle her finances, and watch her

 nine-year-old grandson and help him with homework. Although James discussed her

 ongoing physical limitations such as difficulties reaching and lifting heavy items, she

 stated that she was able to pay attention for a long time, follow written and spoken

 instructions very well, and able to finish what she starts. A few months later, a state

 agency medical consultant reviewed James’ records and assessed that she had

 abilities consistent with a reduced range of light work.2

        In the first quarter of 2021, James was referred by vocational rehabilitation for

 a psychological evaluation to assess her level of functioning. She reported ongoing

 shoulder pain and taking Oxycodone daily. While James mentioned difficulties with

 falling and staying asleep, she denied taking naps during the day and the examiner

 noted that she did not appear tired or lethargic. The examiner suggested that James’

 relatively low scores on formal intelligence testing were possibly due to side effects

 of the Oxycodone she had taken shortly before the evaluation; however, the examiner

        2
          Concerning the reduced range of light work, the medical consultant found
 that James should never crawl or climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, only occasionally
 climb ramps or stairs, and only occasionally reach with the left arm. He also noted
 that she should avoid concentrated exposure to vibration, as well as even moderate
 exposure to hazards or extreme cold.
                                            6
Appellate Case: 23-8023    Document: 010111016484        Date Filed: 03/15/2024      Page: 7

 noted that James was able to physically tolerate a three-hour session during which

 she was alert and oriented, demonstrated normal memory, and did not appear to be

 easily distracted.

        A few months later at the administrative hearing, James testified that she

 routinely took five Percocet tablets every day and due to side effects, she was unable

 to complete tasks and spent much of the day lying down. She told the ALJ that

 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., she would typically spend five to six hours lying

 down on the couch. On questioning by James’ counsel, the vocational expert (VE)

 confirmed that an individual who needed to lie down for several hours during the

 workday could not sustain competitive work; however, when the ALJ asked about a

 hypothetical with the limitations he found supported by the record, the VE identified

 several examples of unskilled light jobs available.

                                       ANALYSIS

        The Commissioner has a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s

 symptoms, that is, his or her subjective statements about his or her impairments and

 limitations. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017). At the first step,

 the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment

 that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.

 Id. at *3. If so, at the second step, the ALJ “evaluate[s] the intensity and persistence

 of [the claimant’s] symptoms . . . and determine[s] the extent to which [a claimant’s]

 symptoms limit his or her ability to perform work-related activities.” Id. at * 4. In

                                             7
Appellate Case: 23-8023     Document: 010111016484        Date Filed: 03/15/2024        Page: 8

 making this evaluation, the ALJ considers the medical evidence of record, along with

 several factors, including the claimant’s activities of daily living. See id. at *7.

       The ALJ cited several grounds for his determination that the record did not

 support any work-related limitations due to medication side effects. For example, he

 found that James’ allegations of debilitating nausea, fatigue, and sedation were

 inconsistent with her description of her daily activities. He further found that her

 statements were inconsistent with the medical evidence, which contained scant

 evidence of any side effects, let alone debilitating side effects. To the contrary, the

 medical providers consistently noted that James appeared alert and oriented, with no

 signs of fatigue or other side effects other than occasional nausea. This evidence is

 more than adequate to support the ALJ’s factual finding that James did not suffer

 debilitating side effects from pain medications.

       Faced with the lack of any record evidence to support her argument, James

 points to warning labels that accompany opioid medications and a physician’s

 reference book as evidence that she suffered debilitating side effects. But this

 “evidence” is unpersuasive because the ALJ was required to determine James’

 residual functional capacity based on the record—not warnings about potential side

 effects. See, e.g., Arnold v. Saul, 990 F.3d 1046, 1047-48 (7th Cir. 2021)

 (“[Claimant] relies primarily on her doctor’s warning against working, driving, and

 operating heavy machinery while medicated. But this warning is not evidence that

 [she] experienced these potential side effects. At most, it is evidence that her

 medications could cause side effects—not that they did.”).

                                             8
Appellate Case: 23-8023   Document: 010111016484         Date Filed: 03/15/2024   Page: 9

                                   CONCLUSION

       The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Timothy M. Tymkovich
                                            Circuit Judge

                                           9