Louie v. Barnhart , 118 F. App'x 356 ( 2004 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 21 2004
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DONNA MCINTOSH LOUIE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 04-7022
(D.C. No. CV-03-262-S)
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, (E.D. Okla.)
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before McCONNELL , HOLLOWAY , and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges.
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Donna McIntosh Louie appeals from a district court order affirming the
Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits. The Commissioner adopted
the ruling of an administrative law judge (ALJ), who found that Louie suffers
from “osteoarthritis of the knees and fingers, which causes more than slight
impairment with limitation in motion and functioning,” R., Doc. 4 at 19, and that,
despite these limitations, Louie is capable of performing sedentary work, although
she is not able to resume any of her past relevant work, see id. at 20. Applying
the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 (Grids),
the ALJ found that Louie is not disabled.
On appeal from this decision, we review to determine “whether the factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole and
whether the correct legal standards were applied.” Howard v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d
945, 947 (10th Cir. 2004). We hold that the ALJ erred in one respect, and we
therefore reverse the decision of the district court approving the denial of
disability benefits.
Louie suffers from chronic pain and swelling in her joints. In March 2001,
her treating physician, Marc Davis, referred her to a rheumatologist, Robert
McArthur, for assistance in diagnosing Louie’s condition; among other questions,
Dr. Davis wanted to determine whether Louie has lupus. Dr. McArthur initially
advised Dr. Davis, “I cannot entirely rule out systemic lupus although on the
-2-
surface, I think it is probably not too likely that is the source of her discomfort,
however it does seem somewhat unusual that she would have relatively recent
onset of these musculoskeletal complaints at her young age.” R., Doc. 4 at 224.
Then, after receiving results from several tests, Dr. McArthur diagnosed Louie
with “[u]ndifferentiated autoimmune disease,” adding that he “really cannot
confirm classic lupus.” Id. at 223.
Louie did not see Dr. Davis for more than a year after he referred her to
Dr. McArthur. She did, however, receive several months of treatment from other
physicians for a fractured left elbow. When she returned to Dr. Davis in April
2002, he made an assessment of “Lupus with Rheumatoid Arthritis,” id. at 234,
and filled out a Medical Source Statement form describing significant limitations.
In the instant disability proceeding, the ALJ rejected Dr. Davis’s opinion
with respect to both his diagnosis of lupus and his assessment of Louie’s residual
functional capacity. Louie contends that this was improper, because Dr. Davis
was her treating physician and his opinion was therefore entitled to greater weight
than the ALJ gave it. We find no error. We have held that the ALJ must clearly
indicate how much weight he has accorded to the treating physician’s opinion and
explain his reasons for doing so. See Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300
(10th Cir. 2003). Here, the ALJ complied with these requirements by stating that
he gave no weight to portions of Dr. Davis’s opinion because they were premised
-3-
primarily on his diagnosis of lupus, which was inconsistent with Dr. McArthur’s
opinion that Louie probably did not suffer from systemic lupus. Although the
ALJ did not expressly apply the factors enumerated in Watkins for assigning
weight to a treating physician’s opinion, see id. at 1301, his opinion reflects that
the decision to give no weight to Dr. Davis’s opinion was supported by the
considerations deemed relevant in Watkins.
Louie next asserts that the ALJ erred in applying the Grids because she
suffers from nonexertional limitations; thus, it was improper for the ALJ to make
a conclusive determination of nondisability based on the Grids, see 20 C.F.R. Part
404, Subpt. P, App. 2. We agree. The record contains several indications that
Louie is subject to nonexertional limitations, including findings by Dr. Davis that
Louie could not perform any job requiring stooping, kneeling, crouching,
crawling, or repetitive joint movements involving pushing and pulling. The ALJ
discounted other portions of Dr. Davis’s opinion but made no reference to these
findings or to any other medical evidence of nonexertional limitations.
Accordingly, we must remand this case to the Commissioner to determine whether
Louie has nonexertional limitations and, if so, to obtain testimony from a
vocational expert regarding the effect of these limitations on jobs that Louie
could perform.
-4-
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED
and this case is REMANDED with instructions to remand to the Commissioner for
further proceedings.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-5-