United States District Court, District of Colorado
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. WATANABE United States Magistrate Judge
The government determined that Jennifer Parady is not disabled for purposes of Social Security Disability Insurance. Parady has asked this Court to review that decision. The Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and both parties have agreed to have this case decided by a U.S. Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The Court AFFIRMS the government’s determination.
The Court reviews the ALJ’s decision to determine whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied. See Pisciotta v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 1074, 1075 (10th Cir. 2007). “Substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It requires more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Raymond v. Astrue, 621 F.3d 1269, 1271–72 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court “should, indeed must, exercise common sense” and “cannot insist on technical perfection.” Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1166 (10th Cir. 2012). The Court cannot reweigh the evidence or its credibility. Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir. 2007).
1. “Step Two” Errors
Several of Parady’s arguments assert that the ALJ made an error during the “step two” analysis. The Social Security Administration applies a five-step process for determining disability. The first three steps attempt to rule the claimant disabled or not disabled through comparatively unambiguous tests. If those steps fail to resolve the question, the government makes an assessment of the functional limitations imposed by the claimant’s impairments-coming to a conclusion as to the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). Once that RFC assessment is made, the government proceeds to the fourth and fifth steps of analysis: whether, with that RFC, the claimant can perform his or her past jobs; and if not, whether the claimant can perform other jobs that are available. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). The RFC assessment is “a function-by-function assessment based upon all of the relevant evidence of an individual’s ability to do work-related activities.” Security Ruling 96–8p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34, 474, 34, 476 (July 2, 1996).
The Tenth Circuit has described the second-step analysis this way:
. . . At step two, it is the claimant’s burden to demonstrate an impairment, or a combination of impairments, that significantly limit her ability to do basic work activities.
The Supreme Court has adopted what is referred to as a “de minimus” standard with regard to the step two severity standard: only those claimants with slight abnormalities that do not significantly limit any basic work activity can be denied benefits without undertaking the subsequent steps of the sequential evaluation process. Basic work activities are abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs, including walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying or handling; seeing, hearing, and speaking; understanding, carrying out, and remembering simple instructions; use of judgement, responding appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and usual work situations; and dealing with changes in a routine work setting.
The step-two severity determination is based on medical factors alone, and does not include consideration of such vocational factors as age, education, and work experience.
Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116, 1118, 1123 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). If a claimant fails to meet this slight burden, the claimant is ruled non-disabled and the ALJ’s inquiry is over; if this slight burden is met, the ALJ proceeds on to the more rigorous analysis that follows.
Importantly, the remaining analysis after step two is effectively de novo: all impairments must be considered whether they were “severe” or not at step two; the functional limitations imposed by the impairments are a separate inquiry which the ALJ must perform anew, rather than relying on the earlier analysis; and the findings at step two do not bind or limit the ALJ’s later analysis. See, e.g., Wells v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 1061, 1065–66 (10th Cir. 2013). For that reason, how the claimant passes step two is more or less irrelevant. As long as the government didn’t resolve the claim against the claimant at step two, any error is necessarily harmless error. See Carpenter v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 1264, 1265–66 (10th Cir. 2008). Here, the ALJ found that Parady satisfied the step-two standard, and the ALJ proceeded to perform the more detailed analysis required in step three and in the RFC analysis. For example: Parady challenges the ALJ’s failure to determine that her depression and anxiety constituted a severe limitation. But even if that was error, Parady’s case proceeded to the next steps, and the ALJ weighed the evidence of Parady’s mental health in detail in the RFC analysis (and Parady does not challenge the ALJ’s discussion of the evidence at that point). As a result, even assuming arguendo that the ALJ made errors in the step-two analysis, those errors are harmless.
III. RFC Errors
Parady’s remaining arguments relate to the RFC assessment: whether the ALJ performed a proper “chronic pain” analysis; whether the ALJ properly accounted for evidence of Parady’s fibromyalgia; and whether the ALJ properly accounted for evidence of ...