Flaherty v. Astrue
Decision Date | 03 October 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 06-1521.,06-1521. |
Citation | 515 F.3d 1067 |
Parties | Victoria FLAHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Frederick W. Newall, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Troy A. Eid, United States Attorney, Kurt J. Bohn, Assistant United States Attorney, Laura Ridgell-Boltz, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Region VIII, Denver, Colorado, Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Regional Chief Counsel, of Counsel, Yvette G. Keesee, Deputy Regional Chief Counsel, of Counsel, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before HARTZ, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Victoria Flaherty appeals the district court's order upholding the Commissioner's denial of her application for social security disability insurance benefits. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Ms. Flaherty alleges disability since March 5, 2002, due to complications from an on-the-job injury in November 2001 in which she was caught in the closing doors of an elevator. She was previously found to be disabled based on an October 1996 application. In 2000, her disability ended. She received a post-secondary education and then worked as a medical assistant and a receptionist. She does not assert that her present claim relates back to her previous disability.
Ms. Flaherty contends that the following conditions have rendered her disabled: migraine, degenerative joint disease, fibromyalgia, pain syndrome, limitations in the use of her upper extremities, sleep disorder or sleep apnea, affective disorder, chronic depression, obesity, diabetes, and peripheral neuropathy. An administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing at which Ms. Flaherty, her neighbor, and a vocational expert testified. The ALJ determined that Ms. Flaherty retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform her past relevant work as a receptionist. Accordingly, he denied benefits at step four of the five-part sequential evaluation process. See Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729, 731 (10th Cir. 2005) (describing five steps).
The Appeals Council denied Ms. Flaherty's request for review, making the ALXs decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Jensen v. Barnhart, 436 F.3d 1163, 1164 (10th Cir.2005). The district court affirmed the Commissioner's decision. Ms. Flaherty now appeals to this court, asserting that (1) the ALJ did not properly assess her RFC because he did not find that her migraines were severe, (2) the ALT failed to consider the combined impact of all of her impairments, (3) the ALJ failed to develop the record to establish the onset date of her disabling migraines, and (4) the ALI erred in finding that she could return to her past relevant work as a receptionist.
The parties do not dispute that the date Ms. Flaherty was last insured for disability benefits was December 31, 2002. Her last day of work was March 5, 2002. Therefore, she must establish disability between March 5, 2002 and December 31, 2002, the "relevant period." See Henrie v. United States Dept of Health & Human Servs., 13 F.3d 359, 360 (10th Cir.1993) ( ).
We review the Commissioner's decision to ascertain whether it is supported by substantial evidence in the record and to evaluate whether he applied the correct legal standards. Grogan v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 1257, 1261 (10th Cir.2005). "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. We do not reweigh the evidence or retry the case, but we "meticulously examine the record as a whole, including anything that may undercut or detract from the ALJ's findings in order to determine if the substantiality test has been met." Id. at 1262.
In this context, "disability" requires both an "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity" and "a physical or mental impairment, which provides reason for the inability." Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 217, 122 S.Ct. 1265, 152 L.Ed.2d 330 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). The impairment must be a "`medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months . . .'" Fischer-Ross, 431 F.3d at 731 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)).
We first address Ms. Flaherty's claim that the ALJ erred in finding that her migraines were not severe. She relies on a report dated December 7, 2002, prepared by Dr. Van de Graaff following a consultative evaluation, as well as her own reports to various medical providers that headaches were among her complaints. Dr. Van de Graaff stated that Ms. Flaherty had "limitations in her ability to hold down gainful employment secondary to her recurrent and severe migraines, which are not optimally treated at this time." R. Vol. I, at 273.
The ALJ gave no weight to Dr. Van de Graaff's opinion that Ms. Flaherty's migraines were disabling because he did not have a treating relationship with her, he based his opinion on a single, subjective report given to him by Ms. Flaherty, and his opinion was not supported by the evidence of record. We conclude that the ALJ's reasons for not crediting Dr. Van de Graaff's opinion are in Accordance with the governing regulation and case law. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) ( ); White v. Barnhart, 287 F.3d 903, 908 (10th Cir.2001) ( ).
The ALJ considered both Ms. Flaherty's reports to medical sources during the relevant period and her testimony at the hearing. R. Vol. I, at 54. He concluded that her claims of "incapacitating migraines [were] not credible to the extent and severity alleged during the relevant period." Id. He noted that none of her treating sources diagnosed her with migraine syndrome and she had not been prescribed medication for migraine. These were appropriate factors for assessing credibility. See Barnett v. Apfel, 231 F.3d 687, 690 (10th Cir.2000) ( ). Moreover, "the mere presence of a condition is not sufficient to make a step-two [severity] showing." Williamson v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1097, 1100 (10th Cir.2003). To the extent Ms. Flaherty claims she could not afford treatment for her migraines, the record indicates that she had health insurance during at least part of the relevant period, R. Vol. I, at 188 ( ), and she did not testify during the hearing that a lack of finances was the reason she did not receive treatment for her migraines. Therefore, we conclude that substantial evidence, supports the ALJ's determination that Ms. Flaherty's migraines were not a severe impairment. We note that even though he did not find this to be a severe impairment, the ALJ nevertheless considered her symptoms of headaches in his RFC determination. Id. at 54.
Ms. Flaherty also argues that the ALJ failed to consider the combined impact of all of her impairments. She further maintains that the ALJ did not, accord enough weight to her fibromyalgia and that he placed undue weight on the opinion of a State agency physician who did not examine her.
At step four, the ALJ must consider whether the claimant's "impairment or combination of impairments prevents [her] from performing [her] past work." Grogan, 399 F.3d at 1261 (quotation omitted); accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e). The ALJ stated that he considered all of her symptoms in assessing her RFC. R. Vol. I, at 55. "[O]ur general practice, which we see no reason to depart from here, is to take a lower tribunal at its word when it declares that it has considered a matter." Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1173 (10th Cir.2005). Furthermore, the ALJ's discussion of the evidence and his reasons for his conclusions demonstrate that he considered all of Ms. Flaherty's impairments.
The non-examining physician's opinion is an acceptable medical source, which the ALJ was entitled to consider. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(1). Ms. Flaherty asks us to reweigh the non-examining physician's opinion and the effect of her fibromyalgia. "[O]ur limited scope of review precludes this court from reweighing the evidence or substituting our judgment for that of the [Commissioner]." Hamilton v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Brookfield v. Yates
- Beadle v. Allison
- Allen v. Gastelo
-
Harrell v. Allison
...testimony. As noted above, an adverse evidentiary ruling alone is insufficient to rebut the presumption of judicial integrity. Larson, 515 F.3d at 1067; accord United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Adverse findings do not equate to bias.”). The trial court's decisi......
-
Table of Cases
...319 (Table) (9th Cir. Oct. 5, 1995), § 1105.8 Fitzgerald v. Apfel , 148 F.3d 232, 234 (3d Cir. 1998), §§ 603.2, 603.6 Flaherty v. Astrue, 515 F.3d 1067, 1071 (10th Cir. Oct. 3, 2007), 10th-07 Flaherty v. Halter, 182 F. Supp.2d 824 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2001), § 1210.12 Flanery v. Chater , 112 ......
-
Case index
...Effect of Absence of Medical Signs or Diagnosis Buckner v. Astrue , 646 F.3d 549 (8 th Cir. July 19, 2011), 8 th -11 Flaherty v. Astrue , 515 F.3d 1067 (10 th Cir. Oct. 3, 2007), 10 th -07 Kirby v. Astrue , 500 F.3d 705 (8 th Cir. Sept. 11, 2007), 8 th -07 Ukolov v. Barnhart , 420 F.3d 1002......
-
Case Index
...Effect of Absence of Medical Signs or Diagnosis Buckner v. Astrue , 646 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. July 19, 2011), 8th-11 Flaherty v. Astrue , 515 F.3d 1067 (10th Cir. Oct. 3, 2007), 10th-07 Case Index Kirby v. Astrue , 500 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. Sept. 11, 2007), 8th-07 Ukolov v. Barnhart , 420 F.3d 10......
-
Table of cases
...319 (Table) (9th Cir. Oct. 5, 1995), § 1105.8 Fitzgerald v. Apfel , 148 F.3d 232, 234 (3d Cir. 1998), §§ 603.2, 603.6 Flaherty v. Astrue, 515 F.3d 1067, 1071 (10th Cir. Oct. 3, 2007), 10th-07 Flaherty v. Halter, 182 F. Supp.2d 824 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2001), § 1210.12 Flanery v. Chater , 112 ......