Doris A. Railey v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, 134 F.3d 383, 10th Cir. (1998)

134 F.
3d 383
98 CJ C.A.R. 175
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
further order.
Doris A. RAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security,
* Defendant-Appellee.
No. 97-7050.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 9, 1998.
1
Before PORFILIO and LUCERO, Circuit Judges, and MARTEN, *** District
Judge.
2ORDER AND JUDGMENT**

3
J. THOMAS MARTEN, District Judge.
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) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff-appellant Doris A. Railey appeals the district court's affirmance of the

final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff's
application for disability insurance benefits. Because the Commissioner's
decision, rendered after four admininstrative hearings, is not supported by
substantial evidence and several legal errors occurred, we reverse and remand
for an immediate award of benefits.
Procedural History
This case has an extensive procedural history. Plaintiff filed her application for
disability benefits on July 25, 1990, alleging an inability to work after July 4,
1989, due to back and knee pain, difficulty with her hands, and asthma. She
also has been diagnosed with a mental impairment. Plaintiff's insured status
lapsed on September 30, 1990.
Four hearings have been held now on plaintiff's application. After the first
hearing in June 1991, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found plaintiff able to
perform a wide range of medium to light work, and thus not disabled. This
decision was reversed and remanded by the Appeals Council because it was
both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the evidence. After a second
hearing in September 1992, the ALJ determined plaintiff could perform light
work, and thus was not disabled. The Appeals Council again remanded the case
on the ground that the decision disregarded, without explanation, the impact
plaintiff's mental condition had on her ability to work. After a third hearing,
plaintiff was determined able to perform her former light work. The Appeals
Council denied review, but in September 1994 the case was remanded by the
district court, because the ALJ's findings on the Psychiatric Review Technique
Form (PRTF) were inconsistent with his finding that plaintiff did not suffer
from a mental impairment before September 30, 1990, thereby undermining the
finding that plaintiff had the mental residual functional capacity to return to her
former work. A fourth hearing was had on January 19, 1996, at which a
medical expert and a vocational expert testified. Thereafter, the ALJ
determined that despite plaintiff's physical and mental impairments, she could
perform her former work and thus was not disabled. The Appeals Council
denied review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the
Commissioner. The district court affirmed, and this appeal followed.
We review the Commissioner's decision to determine whether his factual

findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether correct legal
standards were applied. See Hawkins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1162 (10th
Cir.1997). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales,402
U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quotations omitted). We may "neither reweigh the
evidence nor substitute our judgment for that of the agency." Casias v.
Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir.1991).
On appeal, plaintiff argues the Commissioner's decision must be reversed

because (1) the finding that plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to
perform light work is deficient because the ALJ did not consider all her
medically determinable impairments; (2) the ALJ did not specify the evidence
relied upon to find plaintiff's nonexertional impairments nondisabling, as
required by Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387, 390-91 (10th Cir.1995); (3) the
ALJ's findings on the PRTF regarding plaintiff's mental impairment are not
supported by substantial evidence; and (4) the ALJ did not determine plaintiff's
mental residual functional capacity and compare it to the demands of her
former work as required by Henrie v. United States Department of Health &
Human Services, 13 F.3d 359, 361 (10th Cir.1993). The Commissioner argues
plaintiff is barred from raising her first and second issues because she did not
appeal the district court's approval of these findings in its review of the third
administrative decision. We conclude plaintiff is not barred from raising these
issues on appeal, and that obvious legal errors in the fourth administrative
decision require reversal.
Analysis
10
In reviewing the Commissioner's third administrative decision, the district court

held substantial evidence supported the ALJ's findings that plaintiff could
perform light work and that she was not disabled by pain. The court reversed
the Commissioner's decision, however, because the ALJ's assessment of
plaintiff's mental residual functional capacity was not supported by the
evidence.
11
Plaintiff's failure to appeal the district court's unfavorable rulings in its order
reversing the third administrative decision does not preclude her from raising
similar arguments to this court. First, it is doubtful plaintiff had standing to
appeal such rulings, as the overall judgment was in her favor. See, e.g.,
California v. Rooney, 483 U.S. 307, 311-13 (1987) (dismissing writ as
improvidently granted where party seeking review obtained judgment entirely
in its favor, and objectionable statement in opinion, if given effect in
subsequent trial, could be appealed); Affiliated Ute Citizens v. Ute Indian
Tribe, 22 F.3d 254, 255-56 (10th Cir.1994) (holding party lacked standing to
appeal favorable judgment). Second, the district court's approval of the
administrative findings was not essential to its ultimate judgment reversing the
third administrative decision, and such findings now have been superseded by
new findings in the fourth administrative decision. See Sullivan v. Finkelstein,
496 U.S. 617, 624-25 (1990) (explaining "each final decision of the
[Commissioner] will be reviewable by a separate piece of litigation" in the
district court); Affiliated Ute Citizens, 22 F.3d at 255 (explaining "[a]
prevailing party may not appeal and obtain a review of the merits of findings it
deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the [judgment]"). We
therefore examine the merits of plaintiff's appeal.
12
In support of her application for disability benefits, plaintiff submitted medical
12
evidence she has been diagnosed with several physical impairments, including a
post-surgical knee condition, an impairment to the lumbosacral spine, carpal
tunnel syndrome, and a respiratory condition. In evaluating plaintiff's physical
impairments, the ALJ determined that plaintiff's knee condition was the only
"physical impairment which might be considered disabling," citing 20 C.F.R.
404.1520(c) (setting out step-two requirement that impairment or combination
of impairments be "severe"). See Appellant's App. at 438. Thereafter, the ALJ
made no mention of plaintiff's back impairment, wrist impairment, or
respiratory impairment. This analysis constituted legal error.
13
At step two, a claimant is required only to make a "de minimus showing" that
her medically determinable impairments, in combination, are severe enough to
significantly limit her ability to perform work-related activity. See Williams v.
Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-51 (10th Cir.1988). To determine whether the
claimant's impairments are sufficiently severe, the Commissioner must
"consider the combined effect of all of the individual's impairments without
regard to whether any such impairment, if considered separately, would be of
such severity." 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(B); 20 C.F.R. 404.1523. At this stage, the
ALJ may not dismiss any of a claimant's impairments as nonsevere and
disregard them thereafter. See Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at * 5
(July 2, 1996) (clarifying that ALJ must consider both severe and not severe
impairments when assessing residual functional capacity). Instead, the statutes
and regulations make it clear state that if the claimant's combined impairments
are medically severe, the Commissioner must consider "the combined impact of
the impairments throughout the disability determination process." 42 U.S.C.
423(d)(B); 20 C.F.R. 404.1523.
14
The record shows plaintiff's medically determinable knee impairment, back

impairment, wrist impairment, and respiratory impairment, when combined
with her mental impairment, were medically severe, in that they significantly
limited her ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. 1520(c). The
ALJ was then required to assess these impairments further to determine the
effect, if any, they had on plaintiff's residual functional capacity. His failure to
do so requires reversal of the decision.
15
The ALJ's decision is also deficient based on his failure to set out the evidence
relied upon in determining the credibility of plaintiff's nonexertional
complaints. In evaluating plaintiff's complaints of pain and weakness, the ALJ
simply summarized the factors he considered and concluded her complaints
were not credible, without discussing any of the specific evidence and how it
related to the factors. This is exactly the procedure condemned in Kepler v.
Chater, 68 F.3d 387, 390-91 (10th Cir.1995) (holding inadequate ALJ's
summary of factors and conclusion regarding credibility without explanation of

how specific evidence led to conclusion).
16
Finally, the ALJ committed reversible error in his failure to determine the
mental requirements of plaintiff's former work and plaintiff's ability to perform
such work given her mental residual functional capacity. See Henrie v. United
States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 13 F.3d 359, 361 (10th Cir.1993)
(requiring ALJ to determine claimant's residual functional capacity, physical
and mental demands of former job, and claimant's ability to return to job given
her residual functional capacity). The ALJ's questions to the vocational expert
concerned only the physical demands of claimant's former work as a mail clerk
or sales clerk, with no discussion of the mental demands of either position. As
such, the record was "not sufficiently developed" to make a ruling that plaintiff
could return to her past relevant work. Id. at 360.
17
The errors in the ALJ's decision are obvious and unexplained, requiring
reversal for a fourth time. Plaintiff has requested this court to award benefits as
a matter of law. Given plaintiff's advanced age when she filed her application,
her evidence of several medically determinable impairments, and the
Commissioner's inability to produce an affirmable decision after four
administrative hearings, we agree. See, e.g., Nielson v. Sullivan, 992 F.2d
1118, 1122 (10th Cir.1993) (directing award of benefits based on Secretary's
failure to follow regulations, claimant's advanced age, and length of time case
pending, and noting court's discretion to order award of benefits); Emory v.
Sullivan, 936 F.2d 1092, 1093-95 (10th Cir.1991) (reversing step four
determination and directing award of benefits).
18
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for an immediate
award of benefits.
19
CARLOS F. LUCERO, Circuit Judge, concurring in part, dissenting in part.
20
I agree with the analysis of the majority determining that legal errors in the
fourth administrative decision require reversal. Nevertheless, I cannot concur in
the majority's conclusion directing the award of benefits to plaintiff. My review
of the record persuades me that it is debatable whether plaintiff is entitled to an
award on the merits.
21
It is regrettable that the ALJ has been unable to adequately respond to previous
directions, but given that this is our first opportunity to review plaintiff's
appeal, I would remand for an administrative hearing and a proper analysis.

See, e.g., Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387, 392 (10th Cir.1995) (remanding for
express findings and further proceedings); Henrie v. United States Dep't of
Health & Human Servs., 13 F.3d 359, 361 (10th Cir.1993) (reversing and
remanding for further proceedings).
Effective March 31, 1995, the functions of the Secretary of Health and Human
Services in social security cases were transferred to the Commissioner of Social
Security. P.L. No. 103-296. Pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c), Kenneth S.
Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, is substituted for Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary of Health and Human Services, as the defendant in this action
**
* The Honorable J. Thomas Marten, District Judge, United States District Court
for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation
**
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

Doris A. Railey v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, 134 F.3d 383, 10th Cir. (1998)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doris A. Railey v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, 134 F.3d 383, 10th Cir. (1998)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doris A. Railey v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, 134 F.3d 383, 10th Cir. (1998)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

134 F.

Doris A. RAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

2ORDER AND JUDGMENT**

J. THOMAS MARTEN, District Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Doris A. Railey appeals the district court's affirmance of the

We review the Commissioner's decision to determine whether his factual

On appeal, plaintiff argues the Commissioner's decision must be reversed

In reviewing the Commissioner's third administrative decision, the district court

In support of her application for disability benefits, plaintiff submitted medical

The record shows plaintiff's medically determinable knee impairment, back

summary of factors and conclusion regarding credibility without explanation of

CARLOS F. LUCERO, Circuit Judge, concurring in part, dissenting in part.

appeal, I would remand for an administrative hearing and a proper analysis.

You might also like