Kanelakos v. Astrue - Social Security Disability Appeal

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), M ichae l J. A st rue i s subst it uted for * Jo Anne B. Barnhar t as appel lee i n t his act ion. After exami ning t he bri efs and appel lat e recor d, t his panel has det ermined ** unani m ously t o grant the part ies ’ reques t for a decis ion on t he briefs w it hout or al arg um en t. See F ed. R. A pp. P. 34 (f); 10th C ir. R. 34.1(G). Th e case is therefo re order ed submit ted wit hout oral argument. This order and j udgment i s not bi nding prece dent, except under the doct ri nes of l aw of the ca se, r es judi cat a, and col lat eral estoppel. I t may be cit ed, however, for i ts persuas ive val ue consi stent w ith F ed. R. A p p. P. 3 2.1 a n d 1 0 th C ir. R. 3 2.1. The H onorable W esley E. Brow n, Senior Distri ct Judge, Distri ct of Kansas, *** si tt ing by desi gnati on. FI LED Unite d States C ourt of Appe als Tenth Ci rcuit September 12, 2007 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED S TATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R TH E T E N T H C IR C U IT JAM ES L. KANELA K O S, Plain tiff -A pp e llan t, v. M I CH AEL J. ASTRUE, * C o m m iss ion er o f the S oc ial S e cu rity Adm ini str ati on, Defendant- A ppell ee. No. 06-6123 (D. C. No. 0 4 - CV - 15 7 9- M) (W.D. O k la.) ORDER AND J UDGMENT ** Before O’ BRIEN, C irc u it J u d g e, BROR BY, Seni or Circui t Judge, and B RO WN, Dist rict Judge. *** Appellate Case: 06-6123 Document: 010130797 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 1

-2- Plai nti ff-appel lant James Kanelakos appli ed for di sabi lit y insur ance benefi ts al legi ng numerous ment al and phy si cal i mpairment s. Aft er i niti al deni als, M r. Kanel akos and his repres entat ive appe ared at a heari ng on June 10, 200 4, bef o re an ad m inistrative law jud ge (A L J). T he A LJ d eterm ined that M r. Kanelakos w as not di sabl ed w it hin t he meaning of t he Social Securi ty A ct, in t hat he was phy sical ly capable of pe rformi ng his pas t rel evant w ork of probat ion offi cer and computer sal es repr esent ati ve. The Appeals C ouncil denied r eview and pl aint iff appeal ed to t he dis tri ct cour t, which affi rmed the dec isi on of the C o m m iss io n e r. M r. K anelakos now appeals to t his cour t. W e have jur isdi cti on under 42 U. S. C. § 40 5(g) an d 2 8 U. S. C. § 1 29 1. In r ev i ewi ng t he ALJ ’ s d ec i s i on, we “d eter m in e w he the r the f ac tua l fin din g s a re su p p orte d b y sub sta n tial ev ide n ce in the r ecord and whet her the cor rect legal st andards wer e appli ed.” Doyal v. Barnh art, 331 F.3d 7 5 8, 7 60 (1 0 th C ir. 20 03). W e re ve rse an d rem an d w ith in str uc tio n s to re m an d to th e C o m m is sio n e r. M ental Im pa irm en ts Th ree o f M r. K anelak os’ ap p ellate argum en ts relate prim arily to the A L J’s evalua tion o f his m en tal imp airmen ts. M r. K an elako s, a 60 -year-old V ietnam -era vet eran, w as diagnos ed w it h depres sion i n O ctober 2000. I n the fol lowing months and y ears, he r eceived t reat ment (i ncludi ng mult iple ps y chotropi c medicat ions) for dep ression, po st-traum atic stress sy n drom e, panic attack s, and an xiety disorder, Appellate Case: 06-6123 Document: 010130797 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 2

-3- oft en from mental -heal th provi ders at a medical cent er oper ated by the Depar tment of V eteran s A ffairs (V A). A p hysicians’ assistant at the V A m ed ical cen ter monit ored M r. K anelakos ’ mental heal th usi ng the Global A sses sment of Functi oning (G A F) numeri c scal e. I n D ecember 2002, she rat ed his GAF score at 47-50, indi cati ng “ser ious i m pair ment in s ocial, occupa ti onal, or school funct ioni ng (e.g., no fr iends, unabl e to keep a job). ” D iagnos ti c and Stat ist ical M an ual of M ental Disorders 30 (T ex t Rev ision 4 th ed. 200 0) (em p hasis om it ted). M r. K an e lak os a p p lied fo r d isab ility com p e nsa tio n f rom the V A be ne f its admini str ati on on M ar ch 6, 2002. In October of t hat year, t he V A determi ned that he ha d a 7 0% d isa bility attribu tab le to the m e ntal im pa irm en t o f p o st-trau m a tic st ress disor der wit h depress ion and a 100% combined rat ing when his phy sical impai rments and unempl oy abil ity w ere t aken int o consi derat ion. Thi s eval uati on w as reac hed af ter a review of M r. K anelak o s’ m edical reco rds. O n e m o nth later, M r. K an e la k o s o f f ic ia lly lef t h is em p lo ym en t a s a ju v e n ile p ro b a tio n o f fic e r. From D ecember 2002 t hrough M arch 2003, the medi cal r ecords depi ct M r. K anelakos as st able wit h few complai nts about his social or ment al functioning. T he V A physi cians’ assi stant conti nued assessing M r. K anelakos’ GA F. In December 2003, she not ed that his GA F scor e had incr eased t o 60, sugges ting “[m]ode rat e sy m ptoms (e.g., fl at aff ect and ci rcumst anti al speec h, occas ional panic at tacks) or moderat e diffi cul ty in s ocial, occupa tional, or school funct ioni ng (e.g., few fr iends, confli cts w it h peers or co-workers). ” Id. (em p h asis Appellate Case: 06-6123 Document: 010130797 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 3

-4- omit ted). By March 2004, the phy si cians’ assi stant det ermined t hat M r. K anelakos ’ GA F score had i m proved t o 65, i ndicat ive of “ m il d sy m ptoms” or “so m e d iff icu lty in soc ial, oc c up atio n al, or sch o o l fu nc tion in g (b u t ge n era lly funct ioni ng prett y w ell).” Id. (emph asis om itted). Mea nwh i l e, Mr. Kan e l ak os ’ so ci al s ec ur i t y ca s e wa s p r oc e ed i ng. Two non-exam ining psy cho logist s perform ed a review of the m edical record. T he first psy chol ogist completed a ps y chiat ric r eview t echnique for m (PRT) cat egorizi ng M r. K anelakos ’ mental impair m ent as nonsever e, si tuat ional depres sion as of Februar y 2003. A second psy chologi st concurred i n June 2003. The A LJ held a h e a r i n g o n J u n e 1 0, 2 0 0 4, a t w h i c h M r. K a n e l a k o s t e s t if ie d to d e p r e s s io n, a n x ie t y, inten se m o o d sw in gs, a p pre h en sio n in c row ds, a nd d iff icu lties w ith a uth o rity figures (p articularly h is form er su perv isor in the p rob ation d epartm en t). In the decisi on den yi ng ben efits, the A LJ ackno w ledged M r. Kanelakos’ en titlem e nt to V A disa b ility b e ne fits, b u t no ted o nly tha t “[t]he V A disa b ility progr am differs from the Soci al Secur it y A dm ini str ati on’s s tandard of r eview and de te rm in atio n f o r d is a b ility d ete rm in a tio n p u rp o se s.” A p lt. A p p., V o l. I I a t 1 8. The A LJ als o briefl y di scussed s ome of the evi dence concer ning mental impairments, and found that M r. Kanelakos’ depression, po st-t raum ati c stress sy ndrome, and anxiet y w ere cont roll ed wit h m edicat ion, as evi denced by the 2004 G A F sc o re o f 65. In the A L J’s v iew, M r. K an alek o s’ te stim o n y con ce rn ing h is diffi cul ty in s ocial functi oning was not full y cons ist ent or credi ble. A t s tep t w o of Appellate Case: 06-6123 Document: 010130797 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 4

-5- t he se que nt ia l pr oc es s, th e ALJ de t er mi ne d t ha t Mr. Kana l ek os had sh own s ome sev e re p hysica l im p airm e n ts, bu t no t a s ev e re m en tal im p airm e n t. On appeal, M r. Kanal ekos dis putes t his as pect of t he AL J’s decis ion. H e a rg ue s t ha t t he ALJ er re d in (1) fa i l i ng to gi ve a pp ro pr i at e c on si de r at i on t o t he VA dis abil it y r ati ng; (2) decidi ng that his m ental impai rments were not sever e; and (3) fai ling to develop the record on his mental i m pairments. M r. Kanalekos’ argument s are l egit imat e. W ith re ga rd to the V A ’s d isa bility deter m in atio n, the g en e ral ru le is th a t it is n o t b in d in g o n th e S o c ia l S e cu ri ty A d m inis tra tio n (S S A). 2 0 C.F.R. § 4 0 4.1 5 0 4. N e ve rth eles s, “it is e vid en c e th at th e A L J m u st c on sid e r an d ex p lain w h y he d id not fi nd it pers uasive. ” G rogan v. Barnh art, 399 F.3d 1 25 7, 12 62 (10 th C ir. 2005). In hi s decis ion, the ALJ m ent ioned t he V A rat ing and appr opriat ely stat ed that the SSA and VA standar ds diffe r. B ut he compl etel y “fa il [ed] t o discus s the si gnifi cance of t he V A ’s di sabi lit y evaluat ion. ” Id. at 1263. This i s a cl ear viol ati on of the G rogan h old ing a nd c om pe ls a re m a nd to allo w th e A L J to ex p lain his reasons for rej ect ing t he V A ’s vi ew of the medical evi dence. T his f u n da m en tal G rogan err or is compounded by t he A LJ’s det ermi nati on that M r. K an elak os h ad n ot sho w n that his diag nosed m en tal imp airm ents w ere sever e at s tep t w o of the eva luat ion proces s. At s tep t w o, a cl aimant bears t he bu rd en of m a k ing “a thre sh o ld sh o w ing tha t his m ed ica lly determ ina ble impai rment or combinati on of impai rments s igni ficant ly li mit s his abi li ty to do Appellate Case: 06-6123 Document: 010130797 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 5

M r. K anelakos also as sert s err or i n that report s of t w o examinati ons 1 co nd u cted in co n n ec tion w ith the V A disa b ility d e cisio n (on e sp ec ifica lly psy chi atri c in nat ure) are mis sing fr om the s ocial -secur it y r ecord. W e do not co n s id e r th is arg um en t, w h ic h w as m a d e fo r t h e f ir st tim e o n a p p e a l. See Jant zen v. H aw kins, 1 88 F. 3d 1247, 1 257 (10t h Ci r. 1 999). On re mand, howev er, th e ALJ m a y w is h to o b ta in th es e re c ord s to f u lly d ev e lo p th e re c o rd. See Carter v. Chater, 73 F.3 d 1 0 19, 1 0 2 2 (1 0th C ir. 1 9 9 6). -6- basi c w ork act ivi ti es. ” W il li am s v. Bowen, 84 4 F.2d 7 4 8, 7 5 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 8). “[T]hi s is a de minimus s how ing. ” G rogan, 39 9 F.3d a t 1 2 6 3 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d). Here, as in Grogan, “the A L J’s failure to d iscuss the significan ce o f the V A ’s disabil ity evaluati on in concluding that [cl aimant] had not m et t he ‘de m inimus’ requi red s how ing of a sever e i m pair m ent at st ep two w as rever si ble er ror. ” Id. M r. K anelakos also cont ends t hat t he A LJ shoul d have order ed a consul tat ive ment al examinat ion t o suppl y a medi cal opi nion on t he speci fic i ssue of whether his ment al i m pair m ents affect his funct ional capaci ti es. Such an ex am inatio n is ne ce ss ary w h en th e “ ev ide n ce in th e re c ord e stab lish es a re aso n ab le possi bil it y of the exi stence of a dis abil ity and the r esult of the cons ult ati ve exam coul d reasonabl y be expected t o be of mater ial assi st ance in r esolvi ng the i ssue of dis abil it y. ” H aw kins v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1169 (10th Cir. 1997). W e leave th e d e c isio n w h e th e r to o rd e r a c o n su lta tiv e e x am u p to th e A L J o n re m an d. Com pare Haw kins, 1 13 F.3 d a t 11 6 6 (“ [T ]he S ec retar y has b ro a d latitu d e in order ing cons ultat ive exa m inat ions.”); with 20 C. F.R. § 404. 1519a(b) (sit uati ons requ iring a con sultative ex am ination). 1 Appellate Case: 06-6123 Document: 010130797 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 6

-7- Ph y sical Im p a irm en ts M r. K anelakos asser ts er ror i n the ALJ’s cons ider ati on of his phy sical impairments. In 1997, Mr. Kanelakos un derw ent a surgical repair of a right w rist fra ctu re; in 20 0 0, h e h a d a d isce cto m y an d f u sio n to re lieve c erv ica l sp on d ylotic radiculo pathy. Post-surge ry, h e rep orted symp tom relief an d return ed to w ork. In April 2002, aft er a j ob tr ansfer r equir ed a 70-mil e comm ute, he agai n began complai ning of nec k soreness, spas m s, and sti ffness. M r. K anelakos has been tr eated for sl eep apnea, rest less leg sy ndrome, non- insul in dependent diabet es m ellit u s, chron ic sinusitis, tendon itis or rotator cuff injury to the right shou lder, peri pheral neuropat hy, and chr onic pul m onary obst ruct ive di sease. Against thi s medical background, the VA rat ed M r. K anelakos ’ phy sical dis abil it y as 20% for ty pe-two diabet es, 20% for di abeti c neuropat hy i n his upper ext remit ies, 10% for di abeti c neuropat hy i n his lower ext remit ies, and 20% for uri nary frequenc y. Simil arl y, the ALJ found t hat many of thes e phys ical i mpai r ment s wer e s eve re at st ep t wo of t he eval uat i on pr oce ss. The ALJ det ermined at step four, however, that M r. K anelakos w as not di sabl ed because he ret ained t he res idual functi onal capa cit y (R FC) to per form a w ide r ange of l ight work, i ncludi ng his pas t r elevant w ork of comput er sal es repr esent ati ve and pro ba tio n o f f ic er. M r. K anelakos contends t hat t he AL J shoul d have provi ded a full dis cussi on Appellate Case: 06-6123 Document: 010130797 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 7

-8- of the V A disab ilit y rating in the co ntext o f h is physical impairm en ts. In connect ion wit h M r. K anel akos’ mental impai rments, we have alr eady decided t he A L J’s trea tm e nt o f th e V A de term in a tion w as in a de q ua te. W e se e no re aso n to depar t from t hat concl usion. A ny change in t he st ep-t w o deter m inat ion on ment al impai rments would i nevit ably resul t i n a combinat ion of i m pair m ents alt ering t he A L J’s ste p -f o u r a n a lysis. See Grogan, 399 F. 3d at 1261 (“[A ]t step four,” t he claiman t m ust sho w “tha t the im pairm en t or co m b in atio n of im pa irm e n ts p rev en ts him fr om perfor m ing hi s past w ork. ”) (emphasi s added, quotat ion omit ted). The phy sical i m pair m ent i ssue must als o be remanded for t he A LJ’s further consi derat ion. Conclusi on The A LJ’s s um mary tr eatment of t he VA rat ing deci sion i s i nadequate under the s tandar d announced in Grogan v. Barnh art, 399 F.3d at 12 6 2-63. Th is failure to comply wit h o ur case law affected the disabil ity analy sis as a who le. A s a consequenc e, we do not addr ess t he other iss ues M r. K anelakos rai ses on appeal and we reach no concl usi ons on the evi dent iary m eri ts of hi s cas e. The deci sion of the distric t co u rt is R E V E R S E D an d th e c ase is R E M A N D E D w ith instru c tion s to re m a n d th e ca s e to th e C om m is sio n e r f o r f u rt h er p ro ce e d in g s. En tered fo r the C ourt Terr ence L. O’Brien Circui t J udge Appellate Case: 06-6123 Document: 010130797 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 8