Candelario v. Barnhart , 166 F. App'x 379 ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
February 10, 2006
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
WILLIAM CANDELARIO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 05-1222
(D.C. No. 04-WM-65 (MJW))
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, (D. Colo.)
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, PORFILIO, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Plaintiff William Candelario appeals from an order of the district court
affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying him
disability insurance benefits (DIB). We have jurisdiction over this appeal
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRM.
I. Background
Mr. Candelario was born in 1954. Since completing the eleventh grade, he
has worked as a roofer. He filed an application for DIB on April 24, 1998,
alleging an onset date of August 5, 1997, when he injured his lower back. The
Commissioner denied his application initially and upon reconsideration. After a
hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied his claim. The Appeals
Council vacated the ALJ’s decision and remanded for consideration of additional
evidence.
After consideration of the additional evidence and a second hearing, the
ALJ again denied the claim. He found that Mr. Candelario had degenerative disc
disease of the lumbar spine that was severe but did not meet or medically equal
the criteria for any impairment listed in 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1 (Listings), specifically Listing 1.04, Disorders of the Spine. 1 He also
found that Mr. Candelario could not return to his past relevant work. At the
1
The Listings describe “impairments which are considered severe enough to
prevent a person from doing any gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(a).
-2-
hearing, a vocational expert (VE) testified that, if restricted to occasional lifting
of twenty pounds, frequent lifting of ten pounds, no bending, and a sit/stand
option, Mr. Candelario could perform a number of jobs that exist in the national
economy: final assembler, lens inserter, film touch up inspector, touch up
screener of printed circuit boards, addresser, and order clerk. Relying on the
VE’s testimony, the ALJ determined that, at step five of the five-step sequential
evaluation process, see Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988)
(explaining five-step sequential process for evaluating claims for disability
benefits), Mr. Candelario was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review,
making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision, which the district
court affirmed. This appeal followed.
II. Standard of Review
“We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether the factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the
correct legal standards were applied.” Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 760
(10th Cir. 2003). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quotation omitted).
“Although a reviewing court cannot weigh the evidence and may not substitute its
discretion for that of the agency, it nevertheless has the duty to meticulously
examine the record and make its determination on the record as a whole.” Dollar
-3-
v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 530, 532 (10th Cir. 1987). “[I]f the ALJ failed to apply the
correct legal test, there is a ground for reversal apart from a lack of substantial
evidence.” Thompson v. Sullivan, 987 F.2d 1482, 1487 (10th Cir. 1993).
III. Discussion
Mr. Candelario advances the following arguments on appeal: (1) his
impairment meets Listing 1.04(A); (2) the ALJ erred in his treatment of certain
medical evidence; and (3) the ALJ’s hypothetical to the VE was not supported by
substantial evidence. 2 Before turning to each argument, we note that, to obtain
DIB, Mr. Candelario must establish that he was disabled prior to the date his
insured status expired, December 31, 2000. See Potter v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 905 F.2d 1346, 1347 (10th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). Accordingly,
the only evidence relevant to his claim is that which pertains to his condition on
or before that date. 3
2
In one conclusory sentence, Mr. Candelario argues that he “would assert
that the numbers of jobs set forth by the VE were insufficient.” Appellant’s
Substitute Opening Brief (Aplt. Br.) at 26. This argument is waived. See Ambus
v. Granite Bd. of Educ., 975 F.2d 1555, 1558 n.1 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that an
issue mentioned in a brief but not addressed is waived), modified on other
grounds on reh’g, 995 F.2d 992 (10th Cir. 1993) (en banc).
3
Mr. Candelario does not dispute the Commissioner’s assertion that his
insured status expired on December 31, 2000.
-4-
A. Whether Mr. Candelario’s impairment meets Listing 1.04(A).
Mr. Candelario bears the burden of establishing that his impairment meets
or equals Listing 1.04(A). See Doyal, 331 F.3d at 760. Listing 1.04(A) reads:
Disorders of the spine (e.g., herniated nucleus pulposus, spinal
arachnoiditis, spinal stenosis, osteoarthritis, degenerative disc
disease, facet arthritis, vertebral fracture), resulting in compromise of
a nerve root (including the cauda equina) or the spinal cord. With:
A. Evidence of nerve root compression characterized by
neuro-anatomic distribution of pain, limitation of motion of the
spine, motor loss (atrophy with associated muscle weakness or
muscle weakness) accompanied by sensory or reflex loss and, if there
is involvement of the lower back, positive straight-leg raising test
(sitting and supine)[.]
20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 1.04.
In reaching his finding that Mr. Candelario’s impairment did not meet or
equal Listing 1.04(A), the ALJ extensively reviewed the medical evidence,
including the testimony of Dr. Clayton, a medical expert who testified by
telephone at the hearing. Dr. Clayton stated that, based on his review of the
evidence, Mr. Candelario did not meet Listing 1.04(A) because he “doesn’t have
any neurologic abnormalities on examination.” Aplt. App. at 357.
Mr. Candelario summarily cites to a variety of medical evidence that, he
claims, shows he meets Listing 1.04(A). 4 Although it appears from the record
4
Without specific explanation, Mr. Candelario broadly directs our attention
to Aplt. App. at 168-180, 192-93, 199-201, 241, 250-54, 256-59, 262-65, 269,
(continued...)
-5-
that he satisfies Listing 1.04(A)’s threshold requirements (spinal stenosis,
degenerative disc disease, and an old vertebral fracture that resulted in
compromise of a nerve root or the spine), the record does not contain significant
evidence that shows he meets the additional requirements of Listing 1.04(A). To
the contrary, there is substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s finding that he
does not meet Listing 1.04(A).
The medical records show that, for a period of time after Mr. Candelario’s
injury, he had some radiculopathy and loss of strength and sensation on certain
occasions, but his neurological tests were normal. At his initial exam on
August 6, 1997, Dr. Carvalho, one of his treating physicians, noted “some
decreased sensation in the right foot” and “some radicular symptoms which may
relate to some foraminal narrowing,” but x-rays revealed nothing that appeared
acute. Aplt. App. at 200. One month later, Dr. Robbins read the results of a
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) test and noted that “there is no compromise of
either exiting L4 nerve root.” Id. at 194. On multiple occasions from September
1997 through January 1998, Dr. Aschberger, another of Mr. Candelario’s treating
physicians, noted that his reflexes, strength, motor tests, and neuromuscular tests
were intact or normal and that there were no neuromuscular deficits. See id. at
4
(...continued)
275, 277-79, 281-86, and 288-319 in support of this argument.
-6-
171, 176, 180, 185, 187, 189, and 193. He also reported “[s]traight leg raising is
noted to be markedly limited bilaterally, and essentially nonphysiologic.” Id. at
168.
An examination in November 1997 by Dr. Ogsbury of Rocky Mountain
Neurosurgery showed normal neurological functioning despite a diagnosis of
lumbar nerve root irritation syndrome. See id. at 268-69. In January 1998,
Dr. Carvalho noted some decreased sensation and loss of strength. Id. at 172. In
March, Dr. Harder found that Mr. Candelario’s “sensory and motor examinations
are intact.” Id. at 251. He assigned him a 25% whole body impairment rating,
restricted him to occasional lifting of fifteen to twenty pounds, and opined that he
could not work at jobs that required frequent flexion, extension, and twisting
movements of the spine. Id. He thought Mr. Candelario could sit for periods of
fifty minutes and stand for periods of twenty-five minutes. Id.
Dr. Douthit’s April 1998 exam revealed that “[r]eflexes were brisk and
equal. There is no motor or sensory loss. . . . There is no evidence of atrophy of
his legs.” Id. at 257. In August, Dr. Finch found limited range of motion along
with “evidence of L4-5 radicular pain . . . . Some of his pain response may be
exaggerated, but he does appear to be in honest discomfort. He probably has
more strength in the hamstrings and quadriceps than he [is] reporting, but does
appear to be reduced.” Id. at 264. Also in August 1998, a non-examining State
-7-
agency medical consultant determined that Mr. Candelario could lift or carry
twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently, could stand at least two
hours and sit at least six hours in an eight-hour work day, and had some postural
and environmental limitations. Id. at 157-60.
In May 1999, over eight months later, Dr. Harder examined Mr. Candelario.
He noted that his March 1998 “neurologic examination [that sensory and motor
examinations are intact] has not changed” and Mr. Candelario’s whole person
impairment rating “remains 25%.” Id. at 266. On July 23, 1999, Dr. Aschberger
performed electrodiagnostic testing on Mr. Candelario. Although the study was
limited due to poor muscle activation, he found that bilateral lumbar paraspinal
levels showed no abnormal potentials, the left lower extremity showed no acute
potentials, and his study on motor unit action potentials was incomplete due to
poor effort on muscle contraction. Id. at 276. He noted “lots of breakaway
weakness and complaints of irritation in both legs and his back.” Id.
On September 30, 1999, Dr. Aschberger reviewed a myelogram and a CT
scan. He reported that “[d]egenerative disc changes were noted at L4-L5 with
stenosis and impingement of the left L5 and S1 nerve roots. . . . Examination
today shows intact reflexes and overall strength.” Id. at 273. Dr. Wong’s
November 1999 exam showed normal gait and minimal spasms, some (but not
major) radiculopathy, and “[s]traight leg raising 80 degrees bilaterally with no
-8-
root tension.” Id. at 277-78. He also found that “[m]uscle bulk, motor power,
sensation and deep tendon reflexes in the lower extremities [were] all grossly
intact except for trace ankle jerks bilaterally.” Id. at 278.
As the foregoing review of the record shows, there was no indication of
nerve root compression until September 1999. Moreover, when the compression
did occur, there was no evidence of “motor loss (atrophy with associated muscle
weakness or muscle weakness) accompanied by sensory or reflex loss and . . .
positive straight-leg raising test (sitting and supine)[,]” as Listing 1.04(A)
requires. The only additional records that concern Mr. Candelario’s back
impairment prior to the expiration of his insured status are those dated
October 17, 2000, and December 5, 2000, which list Dr. Askenazi as the primary
care provider. Nothing in those records indicates that Mr. Candelario meets
Listing 1.04(A). 5 We conclude, therefore, that substantial evidence supports the
ALJ’s determination that Mr. Candelario’s impairment did not meet or medically
equal Listing 1.04(A). The ALJ’s treatment of the medical evidence, discussed
below, does not alter our conclusion.
B. Whether the ALJ erred in his treatment of the medical evidence.
5
As discussed below, other medical records that list Dr. Askenazi as the
primary care provider do not concern Mr. Candelario’s condition during the
relevant time period.
-9-
An “ALJ may not pick and choose which aspects of an uncontradicted
medical opinion to believe, relying on only those parts favorable to a finding of
nondisability.” Hamlin v. Barnhart, 365 F.3d 1208, 1219 (10th Cir. 2004). Nor
may an ALJ substitute his own medical opinion for that of a claimant’s treating
doctors. Id. at 1221. Mr. Candelario argues that the ALJ violated these precepts
when considering the medical opinions of Drs. Harder, Finch, Dasler, Douthit,
Askenazi, and Aschberger. He also contends that the ALJ relied on the opinion of
the non-examining medical expert, Dr. Clayton, while disregarding the contrary
opinions of treating physicians. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating that a
treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” when it is
“well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic
techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the
claimant’s] case record”). We consider each of these issues in turn.
Mr. Candelario argues that the ALJ mischaracterized the results of
Dr. Harder’s 1998 examination as “normal” when in fact Dr. Harder had
diagnosed degenerative disc disease. Although we agree that the characterization
was in error, the ALJ recognized Dr. Harder’s diagnosis in reaching his finding
that Mr. Candelario has severe degenerative disc disease but not of Listing-level
severity. Therefore, the ALJ’s misstatement had no bearing on his decision.
-10-
Mr. Candelario contends that the ALJ substituted his own medical judgment
for Dr. Finch’s by misreading a comment that “[s]ome of his pain response may
be exaggerated,” Aplt. App. at 264 (emphasis added), as “some of the pain
response was exaggerated,” id. at 22 (emphasis added), and by misattributing an
additional finding to Dr. Finch, that Mr. Candelario did not cooperate fully with
testing. He also argues that the ALJ completely disregarded most of Dr. Finch’s
medical findings as well as his statement that Mr. Candelario was in honest
discomfort. These observations are not completely accurate. The ALJ recognized
Dr. Finch’s objective functional assessment of L4-5 radicular pain with some loss
of strength. Id. His finding of a severe impairment is not inconsistent with
Dr. Finch’s finding of limited range of motion and honest discomfort.
Additionally, the ALJ explained that Dr. Finch’s conclusion that Mr. Candelario’s
work capacity was significantly limited “appeared to be a regurgitation of the
claimant’s subjective complaints, and does not specifically establish restrictions
in the claimant’s exertional capacities.” Id. at 27. Thus, it is clear that the ALJ
considered Dr. Finch’s findings in his step three analysis, and he provided an
explanation for not completely accepting Dr. Finch’s conclusion about
Mr. Candelario’s exertional capacity. The other errors in the ALJ’s review of
Dr. Finch’s report are, therefore, insignificant.
-11-
We also reject Mr. Candelario’s contention that the ALJ erred by
misattributing to Dr. Dasler a statement that Mr. Candelario exaggerated his
symptoms and limitations. This contention appears to arise from the following
sentence of the ALJ’s written decision: “The record includes evidence suggesting
that the claimant had exaggerated symptoms and limitations as noted by Dr. Finch
and Dr. Dasler, who concluded that the claimant’s mild depressive symptoms
appeared to intensify his subjective experiences of pain.” Id. at 26. Reading this
sentence in full, it is evident that the ALJ did not misunderstand Dr. Dasler’s
opinion but, to the contrary, was fully aware of her finding about the effect of
Mr. Candelario’s mild depressive symptoms on his subjective pain.
Mr. Candelario also contends that Dr. Dasler’s opinion that he was incapable of
even part-time work conflicts with the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion. However,
Dr. Dasler examined him in March 2002, significantly after the date he was last
insured. Therefore, that opinion is irrelevant.
We disagree with Mr. Candelario that the ALJ substituted his own medical
opinion for Dr. Douthit’s by stating “[h]ad the level of pain and inactivity been as
the claimant described it, Dr. Douthit would have seen evidence of atrophy upon
examination, however, he did not[,]” id. at 25. Rather, this statement represents
the ALJ’s conclusion that Mr. Candelario’s subjective complaints were not
supported by objective medical evidence.
-12-
Mr. Candelario also argues that the ALJ should have given controlling
weight to two letters written by Dr. Askenazi dated February 2002 and December
2002. In the February letter, Dr. Askenazi opined that Mr. Candelario’s
symptoms have precluded him from working. In the December letter, he stated
that diagnostic tests performed in 2001 show results similar to those obtained in
1999, and he concluded that Mr. Candelario was permanently disabled in 1999.
This argument is not persuasive. The letters significantly post-date the relevant
time period. In the absence of evidence of actual disability, a treating physician’s
retrospective diagnosis is insufficient to establish a disability. Potter, 905 F.2d at
1348-49. Because the record does not otherwise indicate that Mr. Candelario was
disabled prior to the expiration of his insured status at the end of 2000,
Dr. Askenazi’s retrospective extrapolation of test results from 2001 to
Mr. Candelario’s condition in 1999 is insufficient to do so. Accordingly, the
ALJ’s failure to give either letter controlling weight was not error.
Mr. Candelario also takes issue with Dr. Aschberger’s January 30, 1998,
opinion that his finding of marked limitations in lumbosacral range of motion was
inconsistent with previous examinations. According to Mr. Candelario, prior
exams also showed marked limitations in lumbosacral range of motion.
Therefore, he argues, the ALJ should not have relied on Dr. Aschberger’s
statement. Assuming Mr. Candelario is correct that Dr. Aschberger’s finding was
-13-
consistent with the results of prior exams, the ALJ’s recognition of this fact
would not have affected his decision that Mr. Candelario is not disabled because
it is merely additional consistent evidence of the severe impairment the ALJ
found.
We agree that there is no record that supports the ALJ’s assertion that
Dr. Aschberger was unable to complete an examination on September 17, 1997,
due to Mr. Candelario’s guarding and uneasiness with the examination
procedures. However, this error has no particular significance to the ALJ’s
findings with regard to Listing 1.04(A) or Mr. Candelario’s residual functional
capacity (RFC).
Finally, we disagree with Mr. Candelario’s suggestion that the ALJ relied
substantially on the opinion of the non-examining medical expert, Dr. Clayton,
that Mr. Candelario did not meet Listing 1.04(A), while rejecting the contrary
opinions of Drs. Harder, Finch, and Askenazi. The ALJ relied on his entire
review of the medical evidence, including Dr. Clayton’s testimony. Dr. Clayton’s
testimony does not conflict with the opinions of Drs. Harder, Finch, and Askenazi
because none of them found conditions that meet all the requirements of
Listing 1.04(A). Furthermore, even if Dr. Clayton had not testified, there would
still be substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision.
-14-
C. Whether the RFC accounts for all of Mr. Candelario’s limitations.
Mr. Candelario testified that, about one year prior to the June 2002 hearing,
he began to need to lie down five or six times a day for up to one hour each time.
See Aplt. App. at 374. When the ALJ asked the VE to assume a person had to lie
down five or six times a day for up to one-half hour, a lesser limitation, the VE
testified that none of the jobs he identified would be available. As the ALJ
recognized, however, the asserted limitation began after the relevant time period.
Even if it was relevant, the ALJ explained that the limitation was inconsistent
with the record evidence. Accordingly, he properly disregarded the VE’s
testimony on this point. See Gay v. Sullivan, 986 F.2d 1336, 1341 (10th Cir.
1993) (holding that testimony premised on limitations unsupported by the
evidence is not binding on an ALJ).
Mr. Candelario also takes issue with the ALJ’s treatment of the VE’s
testimony that, “[a]s long as the individual can perform the job task, meet the
criteria for production quotas and quality assurance[,] the sit, stand option is
available.” Aplt. App. at 389. He contends that no evidence was presented “to
confirm that [he] could meet such standards.” Aplt. Br. at 26. However, the
ALJ’s RFC finding does not contain any limitations related to production quotas
or work quality, and nothing in the record supports such limitations. The ALJ,
-15-
therefore, was not bound by the VE’s statement. See Gay, 986 F.2d at 1341.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Circuit Judge
-16-