Powell v. Barnhart , 69 F. App'x 405 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 11 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JAMES E. POWELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 02-7107
(D.C. No. 01-CV-517-P)
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, (E.D. Okla.)
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ , O’BRIEN , and McCONNELL , 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Plaintiff James E. Powell appeals from a district court order affirming the
Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits. Powell claims he is
disabled as a result of a seizure disorder with associated cognitive impairment and
headaches. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Powell was capable of
returning to past work and, accordingly, determined he was not disabled at step
four of the controlling five-step analysis. See Williams v. Bowen , 844 F.2d 748,
750-52 (10 th Cir. 1988) (discussing steps). Powell challenged this decision in the
district court on three grounds, which he continues to press on appeal: the ALJ
should have found Powell presumptively disabled at step three under the listing
for epilepsy; the ALJ improperly substituted her own opinions for those of
Powell’s examining physicians; and the ALJ discounted Powell’s credibility on
the basis of inaccurate facts. Directing our review exclusively to the specified
issues, we agree with the district court that the ALJ’s decision in these challenged
respects is supported by substantial evidence and consistent with applicable legal
standards, and we therefore affirm. Berna v. Chater , 101 F.3d 631, 632 (10 th Cir.
1996).
Step-Three Listing Determination
The relevant listing for the type of seizures presented in Powell’s case
requires:
Minor motor seizures (petit mal, psychomotor, or focal), documented
by EEG and by detailed description of a typical seizure pattern,
-2-
including all associated phenomena; occurring more frequently than
once weekly in spite of at least 3 months of prescribed treatment .
With alteration of awareness or loss of consciousness and transient
postictal manifestations of unconventional behavior or significant
interference with activity during the day.
20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 11.03 (italics altered). Responding to
advances in anti-convulsive therapy, the Social Security Administration sharpened
the focus of the prescribed-treatment condition emphasized above by issuing a
policy statement and amending the introductory section of the convulsive-disorder
listings to direct that a finding of disability cannot be made without evidence
demonstrating therapeutic blood serum levels of the medications prescribed for an
epileptic claimant. See id. at § 11.00(A); Soc. Sec. Rul. 87-6, Titles II and XVI:
The Role of Prescribed Treatment in the Evaluation of Epilepsy, 1987 WL 109184(1987). A failure to satisfy this condition undermines Powell’s claim that he was
entitled to a finding of disability at step three under § 11.03.
Powell has been treated with a regimen combining the anti-convulsive
medications Dilantin (phenytoin) and Tegretol (carbamazapine). There are
several studies in the record assessing his blood levels for these two medications.
On no occasion were normal therapeutic levels found for both. See App. II at
116, 123, 167; see also id. at 117, 121 (reports of medical consultant noting
treating physician’s failure to routinely monitor blood serum levels and reciting
sub-therapeutic results found when such tests were ordered). Moreover, Powell
-3-
presented no evidence that these low blood serum levels were the result of an
extenuating individual idiosyncracy in absorption or metabolism of the drugs. 1
Indeed, he has instead admitted to some neglect in taking his medication. Id. at
192; see also id. at 156 (medical consultant report noting statement by Powell’s
wife that Powell has more trouble “when he doesn’t take his medicine,” indicated
lack of compliance with prescribed regimen). In sum, “the [ALJ’s] determination
1
The relevant policy statement notes that “in extremely rare cases” such an
idiosyncracy could cause sub-therapeutic blood levels in an individual complying
with a prescribed drug regimen. SSR 87-6, 1987 WL 109184, at *3. Given the
rarity of this situation, however, the policy statement directs that any exception to
the presumption of noncompliance “must be based on specific descriptive
evidence provided by the treating physician.” Id. Powell insists the ALJ had a
duty to pursue this unlikely possibility on his behalf by soliciting such evidence
from his treating physician, citing § 11.00, which states that when drug levels are
low, “the information obtained from the treating source should include the
physician’s statement as to why the levels are low.” Powell confuses the
specification of what would be relevant evidence with the assumption of an
affirmative obligation to develop it. The regulations make it clear that, as a
general matter, the claimant must provide the evidence to support his claim. See
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1514, 404.1516. Powell cites no authority relieving him of this
obligation with respect to the requirements for a favorable decision under § 11.03
at step three–a stage at which he bears the burden of proof. See Musgrave v.
Sullivan , 966 F.2d 1371, 1376-77 (10 th Cir. 1992). In any event, given the rarity
of the condition in question, the speculative nature of Powell’s present suggestion
that it could be the cause of his sub-therapeutic blood serum levels (particularly in
the face of other evidence indicating that he did not comply with his prescribed
regimen), and the failure of Powell’s counsel to ask the ALJ to pursue the matter,
we do not think the ALJ erred in failing to anticipate and assist Powell’s current
effort to avoid the consequences of his failure of proof under the listing. See
Hawkins v. Chater , 113 F.3d 1162, 1167-68 (10 th Cir. 1997) (explaining
prerequisites for failure-to-develop-the-record argument in context of ALJ’s
established obligation to order consultative examination).
-4-
that [Powell] has not demonstrated compliance with his therapeutic regimen is
supported by substantial evidence,” and, thus, properly precluded a decision in
Powell’s favor at step three. Brown v. Bowen , 845 F.2d 1211, 1215 (3d Cir.
1988); see also Diaz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs. , 898 F.2d 774, 777 (10 th
Cir. 1990) (holding seizure-based impairment properly discounted for
noncompliance with prescribed drug treatment, presumptively evidenced by
sub-therapeutic blood levels pursuant to predecessor of policy statement noted
above).
Substitution of ALJ’s Opinion for those of Examining Physicians
Powell also contends he has a mental impairment indicated by a loss of
memory performance. His primary support for this contention is an October 1998
report from Dr. McGirk, an examining psychologist. Despite obtaining normal
results for Powell on memory tasks, Dr. McGirk diagnosed a “cognitive disorder
NOS,” 2 evidently based on the concurrence of the seizure disorder and Powell’s
anecdotal account of memory problems. See App. II at 142-45. Several months
later, another psychologist reviewed Powell’s records, noted that Dr. McGirk had
diagnosed a disorder without any clinically identifiable symptoms, and concluded
2
“NOS” is short for “not otherwise specified,” and the cited diagnosis refers
to a “cognitive dysfunction presumed to be due to the direct physiological effect
of a general medical condition” that does not fit a more specifically defined
category of disorder. Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-IV-TR) , at 179-80 (Revised 4 th ed. 2000).
-5-
that Powell had “no medically determinable impairment.” Id. at 147-48. The ALJ
adopted the latter assessment. Powell argues that in doing so the ALJ improperly
substituted her opinion for that of Dr. McGirk. We disagree. The ALJ simply
evaluated the relevant medical record and sided–quite reasonably, as the evidence
noted below reflects–with one expert rather than another.
Powell’s memory functioning was assessed on several occasions and never
found deficient. When he was first referred in September 1997 to Dr. Udonta, the
neurologist who has treated him ever since, Powell’s mental status, specifically
including memory, was evaluated without any indication of problems. See id. at
136. Thirteen months later, as noted above, Powell again produced normal results
on memory tasks for Dr. McGirk. In March 1999, Powell was seen by a second
neurologist, Dr. Lawton, for assessment of his seizure condition and treatment.
Dr. Lawton noted Powell’s “[m]emory appear[ed] intact,” though a “complaint of
memory loss” was “being evaluated elsewhere.” Id. at 157. That evaluation was
conducted by Dr. Green, who in April 1999 reported that “no confirmation of
[memory loss] was found in test data” and, indeed, identified immediate recall as
one of Powell’s cognitive strengths . Id. at 161-62 (also noting Powell performed
average on long-term memory tasks and above average on short-term tasks). In
light of this record, we cannot say that the ALJ’s rejection of a cognitive/memory
impairment lacks substantial evidentiary support.
-6-
In a related but much more perfunctory argument, Powell notes Dr. Green’s
narrative report concluded with the “diagnostic impression” of a “Pain Disorder
associated with psychological factors and general medical condition,” id. at 162,
and insists that the ALJ must have substituted her opinion for this expert opinion
as well. However, Powell fails to mention that Dr. Green attached to his report an
“Assessment of Ability to Engage in Work Related Activities (Mental),” in which
he discounted the vocational significance of the suggested pain disorder by rating
as “slight” or “none” the degree of occupational/performance/social adjustments
Powell would have to make to work on a daily basis and imposing no associated
job limitations. Id. at 163-65. The mere presence of a condition–without any
demonstrable work-related impact–will not support a disability claim. See Hinkle
v. Apfel , 132 F.3d 1349, 1352 (10 th Cir. 1997) (following Bowen v. Yuckert , 482
U.S. 137, 153 (1987)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521. Thus, the ALJ adhered to,
not diverged from, the findings of Dr. Green.
ALJ’s Assessment of Powell’s Credibility
Powell argues that the ALJ’s analysis of his credibility on certain matters
was tainted by reliance on factual inaccuracies. We conclude that the alleged
inaccuracies are, rather, reasonable characterizations of the record. First, the ALJ
noted that Powell did not seek different drugs or treatment for his seizures when,
as he alleged, his condition did not improve at all on the medications prescribed.
-7-
Powell objects to this statement, insisting that he took the three medications
prescribed by his treating physician. But this misses the ALJ’s point, which
clearly followed upon the examining neurologist’s observations that Powell “has
never been on any of the newer and often more effective medications for seizures
of this type, of which there are approximately six at this time,” and that “[p]roper
management of [his condition] would include . . . use of [such] alternative
medications if [he] continues to have difficulty that can be documented while
Tegretol and Dilantin levels are proven to be therapeutic.” App. II at 156-57.
Powell takes issue with the ALJ’s statement that he had not told his doctors
about “feeling almost asleep or other side effects of medications,” id. at 18,
consistent with what he testified to at the hearing, id. at 192 (Powell stating that
he is “almost asleep all the time now” and would “never be able to function” if he
took any more medication). Powell cites two instances early on in his treatment
when he told Dr. Udonta that he felt “some fatigue and ‘sleepiness’” and “some
fatigue” attributable to the Dilantin, id. at 129, 130, and argues that the ALJ
misrepresented the record. There is obviously a large gulf between reporting
“some” fatigue or sleepiness to his physician and Powell’s claim at the hearing
that he was constantly on the verge of incapacitation. While the ALJ might have
been clearer in referring to this divergence, we will not assume a factual
misrepresentation by an ALJ when her statement can readily be understood as a
-8-
reasonable and relevant comment on a discernable discrepancy in the claimant’s
account of his condition.
Powell insists the ALJ mischaracterized the record when she stated that his
general complaint of being “in constant pain” voiced to Dr. Green, the examining
psychologist who suggested the presence of a mental pain disorder as a result, see
id. at 161-62 (also noting Powell rated severity of this pain to “a rather marked
degree”), had not been reported by him elsewhere. The unique nature of this
complaint led the ALJ to ask about it at the hearing, where Powell said he had a
dull headache behind his eyes all of the time and also referred to arthritis in his
shoulders. Id. at 200. Powell now ignores his belated and unsubstantiated claim
about arthritis and focuses on headaches, noting that he alleged “almost constant
headache on left side” in a reconsideration disability report, id. at 89, and that his
current (part-time) employer submitted a letter stating Powell “periodically” must
leave work due to headaches, id. at 168. Actually, neither of these references is
fully consistent with either his complaint to Dr. Green or the account of that
complaint he gave at the hearing. In any event, it seems clear from context that
the ALJ simply meant Powell never voiced the same broad complaint of constant
marked pain to another doctor , which is an inconsistency reasonably to be noted
(further, specifically as to headaches, we note Powell often did not mention them
and never told a doctor that he had them constantly or on a daily basis).
-9-
Finally, Powell contends the ALJ wrongly criticized him for failing to
report the frequency of his seizures to his doctors. Powell cites several medical
records reciting estimates of the number of seizures he was having. Actually, the
ALJ referred to two different types of inconsistency in Powell’s reports of his
seizures and neither of these is refuted by Powell’s citations to the record. First,
the ALJ commented that Powell “has described his seizures in a fairly consistent
way, but has been inconsistent in reporting the time of their origin .” Id. at 17
(emphasis added). The latter criticism has substantial support in the record. See,
e.g. , id. at 175 (“[Powell] reports he began having trouble two years ago [i.e.,
1995] with intermittent [seizure] episodes”); id. at 134 (reciting “history of
paroxysmal spells since 1991”); id. at 156 (reciting Powell “has had episodes” of
seizures “[b]eginning in 1985”). Second, the ALJ observed that Powell’s “reports
of the frequency of his seizures are not reported to doctors and are inconsistent
with [his] activities.” Id. at 18. The ALJ obviously did not mean that Powell had
failed to give any frequency estimates to his doctors–she refers to these at various
points in her decision; rather, she was commenting on a substantial discrepancy
between Powell’s claim at the hearing that he was having one to four seizures a
day and many of his reports to doctors indicating much lower rates on the order of
one to four a week, see, e.g. , id. at 130, 156, 160.
-10-
In sum, Powell’s objections do not warrant any disturbance of the ALJ’s
decision under the governing standard of review. And, as we have reached this
conclusion within the analytical confines of the ALJ’s rationale of decision, the
concerns Powell raises about post hoc justification of administrative action, see
generally Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Chenery Corp. , 318 U.S. 80 (1943), are not
implicated by our disposition. Thus, we have no occasion to decide whether the
principles of Chenery and its progeny, developed in other administrative review
settings, should be mechanically imported into the particular context of social
security disability proceedings, see generally Sims v. Apfel , 530 U.S. 103, 108-12
(2000) (citing unique “inquisitorial rather than adversarial” character of social
security proceedings as reason for not applying traditional administrative
issue-exhaustion rule on judicial review); Sullivan v. Hudson , 490 U.S. 877, 885
(1989) (noting judicial review statute governing social security cases “suggest[s]
a degree of direct interaction between a federal court and an administrative
agency alien to traditional review of agency action under the Administrative
Procedures Act”). We acknowledge that some other circuits have done so, though
without explicit consideration of the distinctive aspects of such proceedings noted
by the Court in Sims and Hudson . See, e.g. , Golembiewski v. Barnhart , 322 F.3d
912, 916 (7 th Cir. 2003); Fargnoli v. Massanari , 247 F.3d 34, 44 n.7 (3d Cir.
2001).
-11-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Terrence L. O’Brien
Circuit Judge
-12-