Boehm v. Astrue ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                               FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS       Tenth Circuit
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                      February 14, 2013
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    MICHAEL B. BOEHM,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                                         No. 12-5102
    (D.C. No. 4:10-CV-00818-PJC)
    MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner,                           (N.D. Okla.)
    Social Security Administration,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    Before KELLY, McKAY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
    Michael B. Boehm appeals the Commissioner’s denial of disability and
    supplemental security income benefits, claiming an administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
    incorrectly evaluated the medical source evidence, wrongly discredited his testimony,
    *
    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 This order and judgment is not binding
    precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
    and inaccurately presented his limitations to a vocational expert (“VE”). We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and 
    42 U.S.C. § 405
    (g) and affirm.
    I
    Mr. Boehm was injured in a logging accident and then again while lifting a
    beam at work. Various diagnostic tests and physicians confirmed that Mr. Boehm
    had degenerative disc disease and an annular tear at L5-S1 disc. Due to the bad disc
    in his back, Mr. Boehm applied for disability, complaining also of leg pain, difficulty
    sleeping, and vision problems. His applications were denied initially and on
    reconsideration, and after a hearing, an ALJ determined at step five of the five-step
    sequential evaluation process, see 
    20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520
    (a)(4), 416.920(a)(4); Wall
    v. Astrue, 
    561 F.3d 1048
    , 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) (explaining the five-step process),
    that Mr. Boehm was not disabled because he retained the residual functional capacity
    (“RFC”) to perform light work subject to certain restrictions. In particular, the ALJ
    restricted Mr. Boehm from climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolding, and limited him
    to no more than occasional stooping. The Appeals Council denied review, and a
    magistrate judge, presiding pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c)(1), affirmed the
    Commissioner’s decision.
    Now on appeal, Mr. Boehm contends the ALJ failed to correctly evaluate the
    medical source evidence, assess his credibility, and state his limitations in a
    hypothetical question to the VE. “We independently review the Commissioner’s
    decision to determine whether it is free from legal error and supported by substantial
    -2-
    evidence.” Krauser v. Astrue, 
    638 F.3d 1324
    , 1326 (10th Cir. 2011). Upon
    reviewing the record and the relevant legal authorities, we perceive no reversible
    error.
    II
    A. Medical Source Evidence
    Mr. Boehm first claims the ALJ incorrectly evaluated the medical source
    evidence, particularly the opinions of his treating physician, Dr. Walter Edwards. A
    treating physician’s opinion is accorded controlling weight “if it is well-supported by
    medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not
    inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” 
    Id. at 1330
    . But “[i]f the
    opinion is deficient in either of these respects, it is not to be given controlling
    weight.” 
    Id.
    As a treating physician, Dr. Edwards’ opinion was entitled to deference. And
    to be sure, some of his opinions were supported by the evidence. But as the ALJ
    observed, Dr. Edwards also offered several opinions that conflicted with regard to the
    extent of Mr. Boehm’s functional restrictions and his ability to work. Specifically, in
    September 2009, Dr. Edwards completed a functional capacity assessment that
    indicated Mr. Boehm could sit and stand for two to three hours in an eight-hour work
    day, and frequently lift fifteen pounds. The very next month, however, in October
    2009, Dr. Edwards completed another assessment indicating that Mr. Boehm could
    only sit, stand, and walk for ten to thirty minutes in an eight-hour day, and could only
    -3-
    occasionally lift between eleven and twenty pounds. Dr. Edwards offered no
    explanation for this sudden deterioration in Mr. Boehm’s capabilities; he simply
    checked spaces indicating that Mr. Boehm was entirely unable to bend, squat, crawl,
    climb, reach, handle or finger with either hand, be near moving machinery, or drive,
    among other things. And citing his previous records, he wrote that Mr. Boehm was
    completely disabled. Yet Dr. Edwards’ previous note from March 2008, when he last
    saw Mr. Boehm some eighteen months earlier, indicated that Mr. Boehm’s injury was
    “without herniation or extrusion,” and he could therefore undergo rehabilitation,
    including walking thirty minutes each day, to return to light work. Aplt. App., Vol. 3
    at 315. And prior to that meeting, Dr. Edwards had noted that Mr. Boehm was stable
    and not deteriorating. Id. at 323.
    In addition to these conflicting reports, Dr. Edwards routinely indicated that
    Mr. Boehm was completely disabled, although at times he believed Mr. Boehm could
    perform light work. The ALJ also noted that Dr. Edwards’ opinion conflicted with
    the findings of Mr. Boehm’s physical therapist, who found that he could perform
    light to medium work and had put forth a poor effort in a functional capacity
    evaluation.1 These inconsistencies justify the reduced weight given to Dr. Edwards’
    1
    Mr. Boehm argues that Dr. Edwards’ opinion should not be subordinated to the
    physical therapist’s opinion, which ordinarily would be correct. But in this case,
    Dr. Edwards requested the physical therapist’s functional capacity evaluation and
    relied on it in his October 2009 assessment, despite the inconsistent findings. See
    Aplt. App., Vol. 3 at 365. In fact, Dr. Edwards’ two examinations preceding the
    functional capacity evaluation support the physical therapist’s finding that
    (continued)
    -4-
    opinion by the ALJ. Mr. Boehm invokes his lengthy treatment history as support for
    Dr. Edwards’ opinions, but this argument does not reconcile the doctor’s conflicting
    assessments. See Pisciotta v. Astrue, 
    500 F.3d 1074
    , 1078 (10th Cir. 2007)
    (“Medical evidence may be discounted if it is internally inconsistent or inconsistent
    with other evidence.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Mr. Boehm also insists
    the ALJ failed to explain how Dr. Edwards’ opinions are inconsistent, but the
    foregoing examples cited by the ALJ adequately explain his reasoning. See Watkins
    v. Barnhart, 
    350 F.3d 1297
    , 1301 (10th Cir. 2003) (requiring ALJ to give “specific,
    legitimate reasons” when discounting a medical opinion (internal quotation marks
    omitted)).2
    Mr. Boehm could return to light/medium work. See id. at 323 (December 21, 2007
    note indicating “[r]eflex, motor, sensory examinations are normal [and] [h]e appears
    to walk without a limp or abnormal gait.”); id. (February 4, 2008 note stating, “His
    problem is stable. He is not deteriorating. I would not recommend any surgery at
    this particular time.”). And Dr. Edwards acknowledged after the physical therapist’s
    functional capacity evaluation that Mr. Boehm’s performance rendered many of the
    evaluation’s “validity criteria borderline.” Id. at 315. Yet Dr. Edwards apparently
    found the functional capacity evaluation reliable enough to incorporate into his
    October 2009 assessment, perhaps because it was consistent with his own previous
    notes. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the ALJ erred in noting the conflict
    and according Dr. Edwards’ opinion reduced weight.
    2
    Mr. Boehm points out that the ALJ incorrectly stated that none of his doctors
    recommended surgery. This error was “minor enough not to undermine confidence
    in the determination of this case.” Gay v. Sullivan, 
    986 F.2d 1336
    , 1341 n.3
    (10th Cir. 1993). Earlier in his decision, the ALJ recognized Dr. Edwards had
    suggested surgery, and the conflicting statements the doctor offered on the subject
    refutes Mr. Boehm’s assertion that his opinion was entitled to controlling weight.
    -5-
    B. Credibility
    Mr. Boehm’s second argument—that the ALJ improperly discredited his
    complaints of pain—is equally unavailing. Mr. Boehm testified that he could sit or
    stand for fifteen to twenty minutes, but then would need to lie down for twenty to
    thirty minutes. He said he lived alone and could do his own chores, but he drove
    only short distances and could vacuum no more than half a room at a time.
    According to Mr. Boehm, his back pain made it difficult for him to fall asleep, and he
    would often wake every two hours to change positions. The ALJ acknowledged this
    testimony, but discredited it to the extent it conflicted with his RFC assessment.
    Now Mr. Boehm contends the ALJ failed to properly evaluate this testimony
    under Luna v. Bowen, 
    834 F.2d 161
    , 165-66 (10th Cir. 1987). Luna instructs that if a
    claimant establishes a loose nexus between his complaints of pain and a
    pain-producing impairment, the ALJ must determine “whether, considering all the
    evidence, both objective and subjective, the claimant’s pain was in fact disabling.”
    Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 
    695 F.3d 1156
    , 1166-67 (10th Cir. 2012). Such evidence
    includes the claimant’s attempts to find relief, regular use of a crutch or cane, regular
    contacts with a doctor, daily activities, and the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects
    of any medication. 
    Id. at 1167
    ; see also SSR 96-7p, 
    1996 WL 374186
    , at *3 (July 2,
    1996) (listing such factors as the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration,
    frequency, and intensity of the pain or other symptoms; and factors that precipitate
    and aggravate the symptoms).
    -6-
    Here, the ALJ detailed Mr. Boehm’s efforts to get treatment, including the
    various diagnostic tests that confirmed “[d]isk degeneration L5-S1 with diskogenic
    style low back pain, not severe.” Aplt. App., Vol. 3 at 246; see also 
    id. at 342
    (“Degenerative disc disease probably responsible for the presenting pain
    syndrome.”). The ALJ also reviewed x-rays showing a “[n]ormal appearing lumbar
    spine with normal flexion and extension.” Aplt. App., Vol. 2 at 12; see also 
    id.,
    Vol. 3 at 259 (x-ray report). Additionally, the ALJ discussed Mr. Boehm’s
    participation in physical therapy, the efficacy of his steroid injections, and his visits
    with Dr. Edwards and other doctors. Apart from these considerations, the ALJ
    recognized that Mr. Boehm had been prescribed Lortab and Soma, which offered him
    limited relief, and that the results of his physical therapist’s functional evaluation
    were questionable due to his poor effort. Given this evidence, the ALJ summarized
    Mr. Boehm’s testimony under the relevant factors enumerated in SSR 96-7p and
    concluded that his complaints of pain were not credible to the extent they conflicted
    with his RFC. We perceive no error. See Qualls v. Apfel, 
    206 F.3d 1368
    , 1372
    (10th Cir. 2000) (“So long as the ALJ sets forth the specific evidence he relies on in
    evaluating the claimant’s credibility,” the requirement that an ALJ link his credibility
    finding to the evidence is “satisfied.”).3
    3
    Mr. Boehm protests the ALJ’s use of boilerplate language in discrediting his
    testimony. See Hardman v. Barnhart, 
    362 F.3d 676
    , 679 (10th Cir. 2004) (“[I]n the
    absence of a more thorough analysis,” “standard boilerplate language will not
    suffice.” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). As Mr. Boehm’s counsel
    (continued)
    -7-
    C. Hypothetical Question
    Finally, Mr. Boehm contends that the ALJ posed an inaccurate hypothetical
    question to the VE. During the hearing, the ALJ asked the VE to assume a
    hypothetical claimant with the limitations assessed in exhibit 12F—a 2008 physical
    RFC form completed by Dr. Russell Wallace. On the form, Dr. Wallace indicated
    that Mr. Boehm could occasionally lift and carry twenty pounds; frequently lift and
    carry ten pounds; sit, stand, or walk for a total of six hours in an eight-hour work day,
    and perform unlimited pushing and pulling. He also limited Mr. Boehm to
    occasional stooping and climbing of ladders, ropes, and scaffolding, but he
    determined that Mr. Boehm could frequently climb ramps and stairs, and frequently
    balance, kneel, crouch, and crawl. The ALJ relied on these assessments contained in
    the RFC form, but Mr. Boehm says doing so failed to ensure the accuracy of the
    question posed to the VE. We disagree.
    A hypothetical question must include the impairments borne out by the record.
    Evans v. Chater, 
    55 F.3d 530
    , 532 (10th Cir. 1995). Dr. Wallace assessed specific,
    individual limitations commensurate with light work. See 
    20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567
    (b),
    416.967(b) (“Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with
    well knows, however, this argument is unavailing here because the language was
    preceded by a discussion of the evidence and factors used for assessing Mr. Boehm’s
    credibility. Cf. Strickland v. Astrue, No. 11-7077, 
    2012 WL 3935755
    , at *7
    (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (rejecting counsel’s boilerplate argument because
    “[t]he ALJ did not simply recite the general factors—he also stated the specific
    evidence he relied on in determining that Claimant’s allegations were not credible.”).
    -8-
    frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds.”). The VE testified
    that she had studied the record, including Dr. Wallace’s RFC form, and listened to
    Mr. Boehm’s testimony. She then testified that based on the physical limitations
    contained in the form, Mr. Boehm could not return to his past work as he performed
    it, but he could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national
    economy. Nothing in the record suggests the hypothetical failed to reflect
    Mr. Boehm’s limitations. Mr. Boehm says Dr. Wallace “apparently did not review at
    least 60 pages of medical records,” Aplt. Br. at 18, but most of those records pre-date
    Dr. Wallace’s RFC form, and there is no indication he failed to consider them.
    Although some documents post-date the form, they nevertheless coincide with the
    limitations found by Dr. Wallace; the lone exception is Dr. Edwards’ October 2009
    assessment, which we have already said was unsupported by the evidence. We find
    no error in the ALJ’s reliance on Dr. Wallace’s RFC form.4
    4
    In challenging the ALJ’s hypothetical question at step 5, Mr. Boehm attacks
    the ALJ’s analysis at step 2, arguing that the ALJ “did not assess or consider at step 2
    whether Claimant’s leg pain and vision problems are severe, non-severe or medically
    determinable.” Aplt. Br. at 19. To the extent Mr. Boehm attempts to advance an
    independent challenge to the ALJ’s step 2 findings within the context of his step 5
    argument, we decline to consider the issue. See Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1161
    (declining to consider poorly developed sub-issues).
    -9-
    III
    The Commissioner’s decision applied the correct legal standards, and it is
    supported by substantial evidence. For these reasons, the judgment of the district
    court is affirmed.
    Entered for the Court
    Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
    Circuit Judge
    - 10 -