United States District Court, D. Colorado
OPINION AND ORDER
N.
Reid Neureiter United States Magistrate Judge
The
government determined that Plaintiff Geraldine Gonzales was
not disabled for purposes of the Social Security Act for the
period from April 15, 2015 through December 8, 2017, the date
of the decision. (AR[1] 16.) Ms. Gonzales 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). (Dkt. #13.)
Standard
of Review
In
Social Security appeals, the Court reviews the decision of
the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) 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).
Background
At the
second step of the Commissioner's five-step sequence for
making determinations, [2] the ALJ found that Ms. Gonzales
“has the following severe impairments: generalized
anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), degenerative disc disease of lumbar
and cervical spine, venous insufficiency, obesity, and
diabetes mellitus.” (AR 18.) The ALJ then determined at
step three that Ms. Gonzales “does not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that meets or
medically equals the severity of one of the listed
impairments” in the regulations. (AR 18-22) Because he
concluded that Ms. Gonzales did not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that meets the severity of the
listed impairments, the ALJ found that Ms. Gonzales has the
following residual functional capacity (“RFC”):
. . . [Ms. Gonzales] has the residual functional capacity to
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b) except the claimant must never be required to
climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. She can occasionally
climb ramps and stairs. She can constantly balance, but only
occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. The claimant is
further limited in that she must avoid frequent use of moving
and/or dangerous machinery, and frequent exposure to
unprotected heights. She must avoid frequent exposure to
irritants such as fumes, odors, dusts and gases, and poorly
ventilated areas. She must also avoid all driving of motor
vehicles at work. The claimant is further limited to work
that consists of only simple, routine, repetitive tasks. She
is able to maintain sufficient attention and concentration
for extended periods of two-hour segments during a normal
workday with normal breaks, but only in work that consists of
no more than simple, routine, repetitive tasks. She is
further limited to work that requires no more than frequent
interaction with the public, coworkers, and supervisors, and
to work that requires no more than occasional supervision,
which is defined as requiring a supervisor's critical
checking of her work.
(AR 22.)
The ALJ
concluded that Ms. Gonzales was unable to perform past
relevant work. (AR 29.) However, at step five, the ALJ found
that, considering Ms. Gonzales's age, education, work
experience, and RFC, there are jobs that exist in significant
numbers in the national economy that she can perform,
including Routine Clerk, Office Helper, and Mail Sorter. (AR
32.) Accordingly, Ms. Gonzales was deemed not to have been
under a disability from the alleged onset date of April 22,
2015, through December 8, 2017, the date of the decision. (AR
33.)
Analysis
Ms.
Gonzales argues that the ALJ's decision should be
reversed because he did not assign any specific weight to the
medical opinions of two examining psychologists, Dr. Carlos
Rodriguez and Dr. David Benson. In contrast, the ALJ gave
great weight to the opinion of non-examining psychologist Dr.
Ronald Houston.
Dr.
Rodriguez's Opinion
Dr.
Rodriguez conducted a psycho-diagnostic interview on May 17,
2017. (AR 770-77.) His review of Ms. Gonzales' mental
health records from January 2015 through January 2017
indicated that she “was diagnosed with and treated for
a Major Depressive Disorder.” (AR 770.) Dr. Rodriguez
made the following observations during the examination:
Geraldine presents with flat affect and a depressed demeanor.
She was cooperative during this evaluation and wore
sunglasses throughout the evaluation. She wears prescription
glasses for reading. She does not display any expressive or
receptive deficits. Gerald[i]ne presents appropriately
dressed and adequately groomed for this evaluation. Her
speech is goal directed and coherent. Her thought processes
and her speech do not reflect the presence of rapid thinking,
delusions, hallucinations, confused thinking, flight of
ideas, or other psychotic manifestations. On Mental Status
Examination, Gerald[i]ne is oriented to person, place, and
time. Abstraction ability is intact given her appropriate
responses to similarities type questions. For example, when
asked how a dog and a lion are alike, she responded,
“They're animals.” Her responses to
comprehension type questions indicate deficits in basic
social judgement. For example, when asked what she would do
if ...