February 7, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
WILLIAM O. MAYBERRY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
No. 11-5058
(D.C. No. 4:09-CV-00533-TLW)
(N.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellee.
William O. Mayberry appeals from the order entered by the district court
affirming the Social Security Commissioners decision denying his applications
for disability insurance benefits and supplement security income benefits under
the Social Security Act. Exercising jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and
28 U.S.C. 1291, we affirm.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant 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
ordered 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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.
I.
Plaintiff applied for social security benefits based on various physical and
mental infirmities. His applications were denied initially and on reconsideration,
and a de novo hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ).
The ALJ also denied plaintiffs applications at step five of the five-step
sequential evaluation process for determining disability. See Fischer-Ross v.
Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729, 731 (10th Cir. 2005) (describing five steps).
Specifically, the ALJ found that: (1) plaintiff has not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since February 21, 2002; (2) plaintiff suffers from the severe
medical impairments of obesity, diabetes mellitus, depression, and a pain
disorder; (3) plaintiffs impairments do not meet or equal any listed impairment
under the controlling regulations; (4) plaintiff has the residual functional capacity
to perform sedentary work, but he cannot perform more than simple, repetitive
tasks, Aplt. App., Vol. 2 at 18; (5) plaintiff is not able to perform his past
relevant work as a groundskeeper since he performed that work at the medium
level of exertion; but (6) considering plaintiffs age, education, work experience,
and residual functional capacity, there are other jobs that exist in significant
numbers in the national economy that plaintiff can perform such as bench
assembler, machine operator, and order clerk.
-2-
The Appeals Council denied plaintiffs request for review of the ALJs
decision. He then filed a complaint in the district court. A magistrate judge
affirmed, and this appeal followed.
Because the Appeals Council denied review, the ALJs decision is the
Commissioners final decision for purposes of this appeal. See Doyal v.
Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 759 (10th Cir. 2003). In reviewing the ALJs decision,
we neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for that of the
agency. Casias v. Secy of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800
(10th Cir. 1991). Instead, we review the ALJs decision only to determine
whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record
and whether the correct legal standards were applied. Doyal, 331 F.3d at 760.
Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance.
Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007). It is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A decision is not based on substantial
evidence if it is overwhelmed by other evidence in the record. Wall v. Astrue,
561 F.3d 1048, 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
II.
Plaintiff claims that: (1) the ALJ failed to perform a proper evaluation of
the opinions of his treating physician, Dr. LaFromboise; (2) the ALJs finding
that plaintiffs statements about his impairments were not entirely credible is not
-3-
-4-
-5-
We note that the ALJ also gave two additional reasons for discounting
Dr. LaFromboises opinions. First, the ALJ stated that Dr. LaFromboise
apparently relied quite heavily on the subjective reports of symptoms and
limitations provided by the claimant, and seemed to uncritically accept as true
most, if not all, of what the claimant reported. Aplt. App., Vol. 2 at 24. Second,
the ALJ pointed out that, [w]hile [Dr. LaFromboise] does have a treating
relationship with the claimant, the treatment history is quite brief, when
considering the claimants alleged onset date of February 2, 2002. Id. These are
insufficient reasons for discounting Dr. LaFromboises opinions. The first reason
(continued...)
-6-
(...continued)
is conclusory and relies on improper boilerplate language, while the second
reason ignores the fact that Dr. LaFromboise saw plaintiff seven times over the
course of a six-month period and prepared detailed treatment records concerning
each visit.
-7-
At the hearing before the ALJ, plaintiffs counsel told the ALJ that he was
anticipating that Dr. LaFromboise would provide a mental residual functional
capacity assessment form for plaintiff. See Aplt. App., Vol. 2 at 230-31. As a
result, the ALJ left the administrative record open for ten days following the
hearing to receive that record. Id. at 231. However, there is no such record in
the administrative record that is before this court.
4
As noted above, Dr. LaFromboise did state that plaintiff is easily confused
and has poor ability to concentrate on conversation of any depth. Aplt. App.,
Vol. 2 at 202. The ALJ took into account the former limitation by limiting
plaintiffs residual functional capacity to simple, repetitive tasks, id. at 18,
while the latter limitation finds no support in Dr. Lafromboises treatment records
as the doctor never mentioned any difficulties in maintaining a conversation.
-9-
Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387, 391 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks
omitted). But [f]indings as to credibility should be closely and affirmatively
linked to substantial evidence and not just a conclusion in the guise of findings.
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
The ALJs main findings in support of his adverse credibility determination
were as follows:
The claimant has described daily activities which are not limited to
the extent one would expect, given the complaints of disabling
symptoms and limitations. At one point or another in the record,
either in forms completed in connection with the application and
appeal, medical records or reports, or in the claimants testimony, the
claimant has reported the following activities of caring for his own
personal needs, fixing meals for himself, performing the household
chores for himself, mowing the lawn and visiting with close friends.
As far as medical care, the claimant has not generally received
the type of medical treatment one would expect for a totally disabled
individual, and the treatment the claimant has received for the
allegedly disabling impairments has been essentially routine and
conservative in nature. With regard to medication side effects,
although the claimant has alleged various side effects from the use of
the medications, the medical records, such as office treatment notes,
do not corroborate those allegations. . . . The record fails to
demonstrate the presence of any pathological clinical signs,
significant medical findings, or any neurological abnormalities which
would establish the existence of a pattern of pain of such severity as
to prevent the claimant from engaging in any work on a sustained
basis.
Aplt. App., Vol. 2 at 23.
Because the medical evidence in this case is so sparse, we do not need to
delve into plaintiffs allegations regarding his activities of daily living or his
-10-
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Circuit Judge
-12-