Lynn v. Colvin

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
January 4, 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
GREGGORY A. LYNN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 15-5031
(D.C. No. 4:13-CV-00596-GKF-TLW)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting (N.D. Okla.)
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before KELLY, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
This appeal grew out of the Social Security Administration determination
that the plaintiff, Mr. Greggory A. Lynn, was not disabled. This determination
was initially made by an administrative law judge after hearing Mr. Lynn’s
evidence. Dissatisfied with the administrative law judge’s determination, Mr.
Lynn sought review by the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council and
*
The parties have not requested oral argument, and the Court concludes that
oral argument would not materially aid our consideration of the appeal. See Fed.
R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thus, we have decided the appeal
based on the briefs.
Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under
the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Fed. R. App.
P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
presented new evidence. The Appeals Council considered the evidence, but
declined to review the administrative law judge’s determination. Mr. Lynn sought
further review in federal district court. The court affirmed the denial of benefits
and Mr. Lynn appeals, arguing that
! the Appeals Council and the district court failed to properly consider
the new evidence and
! the administrative law judge erroneously failed to consider some of
Mr. Lynn’s impairments, to properly evaluate Mr. Lynn’s ability to
reach, to find that the number of available jobs was insignificant, and
to make proper credibility findings.
We reject these arguments and affirm.
I. Standard of Review
We exercise de novo review over the district court’s ruling, considering the
same question presented in district court. Fischer v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729, 731
(10th Cir. 2005). That question is whether the Social Security Administration
applied the correct legal standards and made factual findings supported by
substantial evidence. Nguyen v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1400, 1402 (10th Cir. 1994).
II. The Appeals Council properly considered the newly submitted
evidence.
When seeking review by the Appeals Council, Mr. Lynn submitted an
evaluation form completed by a treating physician (Dr. Joshua Livingston). In the
form, Dr. Livingston opined that Mr. Lynn could not work full-time because of
severe, ongoing pain. According to Mr. Lynn, both the Appeals Council and
2
district court failed to properly consider the evaluation form. We reject this
argument.
Mr. Lynn first argues that the Appeals Council inadequately discussed the
newly submitted evidence. This challenge is invalid.
The Appeals Council said that it had considered the new evidence and
determined that it did not provide a basis for changing the administrative law
judge’s decision. Appellant’s App’x, vol. II at 1-2. This statement sufficiently
addressed the new evidence, for we held in Martinez v. Barnhart, 444 F.3d 1201(10th Cir. 2006), that the Appeals Council had no obligation to explain how it
analyzed new evidence. Id. at 1208. There we held that the Appeals Council
satisfied its obligation by stating that it had considered the additional evidence
and that it did not provide a basis for changing the administrative law judge’s
decision. Id. at 1207-08.
Mr. Lynn attempts to distinguish Martinez on the basis that the new
evidence in Martinez involved only treatment records and that the new evidence
here relates to functional limitations. But Martinez does not turn on the nature of
the new evidence. Instead, the opinion turns on the absence of any legal
requirement for the Appeals Council to discuss the effect of the newly submitted
evidence: “While an express analysis of the Appeals Council’s determination
would have been helpful for purposes of judicial review, [the plaintiff] points to
3
nothing in the statutes or regulations that would require such an analysis where
new evidence is submitted and the Appeals Council denies review.” Id. at
1207-08.
Mr. Lynn also challenges the review in federal district court. According to
Mr. Lynn, the district court failed to properly weigh Dr. Livingston’s opinion
given the pertinent regulatory factors. This argument reflects confusion over what
we are reviewing. Though we are ostensibly reviewing the district court’s ruling,
our review is de novo. See p. 2, above. In exercising de novo review, we
independently determine whether the agency erred. Briggs ex rel. Briggs v.
Massanari, 248 F.3d 1235, 1237 (10th Cir. 2001). Because we are independently
reviewing the agency’s determination, not the district court’s, any alleged error
on the part of the district court would not require reversal.
III. The administrative law judge did not fail to consider Mr. Lynn’s
impairments.
Mr. Lynn argues that the administrative law judge failed to consider
impairments involving vision, finger numbness, and walking. We reject these
arguments.
A. The Legal Requirement
As Mr. Lynn argues, the administrative law judge had an obligation to
consider all of the medically determinable impairments. Salazar v. Barnhart, 468
4
F.3d 615, 621 (10th Cir. 2006). The sole question here is whether the
administrative law judge complied with this requirement.
B. The administrative law judge properly considered the alleged
vision impairment.
Mr. Lynn testified that he experienced vision problems involving blurriness
and double vision. The administrative law judge accurately recounted this
testimony, noting that Mr. Lynn had two conditions which diminished his vision:
nuclear sclerosis (cataracts) and background diabetic retinopathy.
The administrative law judge did not ignore the vision problems. Instead,
the judge acknowledged that nuclear sclerosis and background diabetic
retinopathy could reasonably cause the alleged vision problems. The judge then
did what the federal regulations require: he assessed Mr. Lynn’s credibility about
the extent of his vision problems based on these conditions.
In making this assessment, the administrative law judge referred to four
aspects of the medical evidence:
1. A consultative opthalmologist, Dr. Hanson, noted that Mr. Lynn was
able to navigate throughout the office without assistance.
2. An external examination of the eyes was normal.
3. A funduscopic examination was normal except for background
diabetic retinopathy.
4. One vision test showed a normal field of vision.
5
In discussing these four aspects of the medical record, the administrative law
judge satisfied his obligation to consider the alleged vision impairment.
C. The administrative law judge properly considered numbness in
the fingers.
According to Mr. Lynn, the administrative law judge also failed to consider
finger numbness. We disagree.
Mr. Lynn testified that the numbness prevented him from frequently using
his hands. The administrative law judge questioned this testimony, reasoning that
the medical record did not reflect a cause for the numbness. Mr. Lynn challenges
this reasoning, arguing that the numbness could be traced to diabetic neuropathy
and osteoarthritis. But the record does not tie the finger numbness to diabetic
neuropathy or osteoarthritis. As a result, we reject Mr. Lynn’s argument involving
a failure to discuss the finger numbness.
D. The administrative law judge properly considered the difficulty
in walking.
Mr. Lynn testified that he needed a cane to walk and argued that this
testimony was improperly discounted. We disagree, for the administrative law
judge did account for the need to use a cane, finding that Mr. Lynn was limited to
work that allowed him to sit most of the day. The difficulty in walking was not
ignored; to the contrary, it was included in the administrative law judge’s
assessment.
6
IV. The administrative law judge did not err in assessing the ability to
reach.
In assessing what Mr. Lynn could do with his impairments, the
administrative law judge found that Mr. Lynn could work so long as he did not
work above the shoulder level. Mr. Lynn argues that this assessment was not
strict enough because medical evidence demonstrated a reduced range of motion
in his right shoulder.
Dr. Hopper found that Mr. Lynn could reach with his shoulder up to 120
degrees, had a normal ability to adduct and rotate his right shoulder, and could
elevate the right shoulder up to 120 degrees. The administrative law judge
adequately accounted for this evidence in finding that Mr. Lynn could work so
long as he did not work above the shoulder level.
V. The administrative law judge did not err in finding that the number of
available jobs was significant.
The administrative law judge found that there were 700 jobs available in
Mr. Lynn’s region and 24,900 jobs available throughout the nation, concluding
that these numbers were significant. Mr. Lynn argues that with only 700 available
jobs in the region, the administrative law judge should have conducted a more
thorough analysis before characterizing the number of available jobs as
significant.
Mr. Lynn’s argument erroneously focuses solely on the number of available
regional jobs. “The relevant test is either jobs in the regional economy or jobs in
7
the national economy.” Raymond v. Astrue, 621 F.3d 1269, 1274 n.2 (10th Cir.
2009) (emphasis in original). Thus, the number of available jobs can be
significant even if few of the jobs are in the plaintiff’s region. Id. at 1274. In
these circumstances, we reject Mr. Lynn’s challenge.
VI. The administrative law judge did not err in assessing Mr. Lynn’s
credibility.
Mr. Lynn testified that he could not cook, clean, walk, bathe, or read. But
the administrative law judge concluded that Mr. Lynn’s testimony was not fully
credible based on discrepancies with the medical record. Mr. Lynn argues that
this conclusion was not closely linked to the evidence, ignored the need for a
cane, vaguely referred to undisclosed reasons to discount Mr. Lynn’s symptoms,
mischaracterized the record, disregarded the need for medication, and failed to
account for Mr. Lynn’s inability to afford treatment. These arguments are
rejected.
The administrative law judge is best suited to assess credibility, and we
will not disturb credibility findings that are supported by substantial evidence.
Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1144 (10th Cir. 2010).
The administrative law judge discussed the relevant factors and grounded
the findings in the medical evidence. For example, the administrative law judge
cited evidence that Mr. Lynn cared for his own needs, cared for his children while
his wife worked, drove during the day, and paid bills. In addition, the
8
administrative law judge described Mr. Lynn’s conservative level of treatment,
evidence that Mr. Lynn responded well to medication, and the absence of medical
opinions supporting a restrictive physical assessment.
According to Mr. Lynn, the administrative law judge disregarded the need
for a cane. The judge did not improperly disregard that evidence; instead, the
judge relied on the fact that there was no evidence stating that the use of a cane
was medically necessary.
Mr. Lynn argues that the judge not only disregarded the need for a cane,
but also vaguely referred to other undisclosed reasons for discounting Mr. Lynn’s
complaints. We disagree. This argument is based on a misinterpretation of the
administrative law judge’s opinion. The judge started his discussion of credibility
by stating: “[I]t is difficult to attribute [Mr. Lynn’s claimed limitations] to [his]
medical conditions, as opposed to other reasons, in view of the relatively weak
medical evidence and other forms discussed in this decision.” Appellant’s App’x
vol. II, at 26 (emphasis added). The judge then discussed the specific evidence,
explaining why he discounted Mr. Lynn’s credibility.
According to Mr. Lynn, that explanation mischaracterized the evidence
because the administrative law judge erroneously found no evidence of diabetic
retinopathy or finger numbness. But Mr. Lynn misstates what the administrative
law judge found. The judge acknowledged the existence of evidence of trace
diabetic retinopathy, but concluded that this evidence did not support Mr. Lynn’s
9
assertion about the impact on his ability to read. In addition, the judge
acknowledged evidence of joint pain, but remarked that this evidence did not
support the complaint of numbness in Mr. Lynn’s fingers. Thus, the
administrative law judge’s analysis was consistent with the medical evidence.
Mr. Lynn also argues that the administrative law judge failed to properly
consider the need for medication and the presence of side effects. We disagree.
The administrative law judge remarked that the medications had been
discontinued or adjusted. Mr. Lynn does not question that remark. Instead, Mr.
Lynn challenges the judge’s conclusion that Mr. Lynn had not complained of any
side effects, pointing out that he reported drowsiness and a feeling of heaviness in
his chest. But Mr. Lynn did not attribute these conditions to his medications. He
repeatedly said his medications worked “great.” R. vol. III, at 448, 456, 459. The
judge’s statement was factually correct.
In addition, Mr. Lynn contends that the administrative law judge
improperly discounted Mr. Lynn’s credibility because he did not seek greater
medical treatment. Mr. Lynn explains that he cannot afford greater treatment.
Under federal regulations, an administrative law judge cannot draw inferences
from a claimant’s failure to seek medical treatment without considering the
claimant’s explanations, such as an inability to afford treatment. Social Security
Regulation 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *7-8 (1996). But here the administrative
law judge did not draw inferences from Mr. Lynn’s failure to seek more extensive
10
treatment. Instead, the judge simply pointed out that Mr. Lynn’s doctors had
recommended and provided treatment that was routine and conservative. That
explanation was permissible under the evidence and federal regulations.
VII. Disposition
We affirm.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
11