Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT
N ICK P. A RA G O N ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
M ICH AEL J. ASTRU E, *
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
No. 06-2285
(D.C. No. CIV-05-931 JP/AC T)
(D . N.M .)
Defendant-Appellee.
Plaintiff Nick P. Aragon appeals the district courts order upholding the
Commissioners denial of his application for social security disability benefits
and supplemental security income benefits. W e take jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
(...continued)
less than ten pounds mandated a determination that he was disabled, we reject this
argument. The ultimate decision on disability is for the ALJ, not the physician.
E.g., 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(e)(1); 416.927(e)(1). M oreover, as discussed herein,
the ALJ imposed greater restrictions on the use of M r. Aragons right shoulder
than those recommended by Dr. Radecki. M r. Aragons briefs do not make clear
the precise findings and opinions he claims the ALJ disregarded.
-4-
In January of 2005, one month before his hearing before the ALJ,
M r. Aragons attorney sent him for an evaluation by Dr. Brooks. She met with
M r. Aragon and his wife, administered various tests (one of which M r. Aragon
refused to complete), and concluded that M r. Aragon had [a] major depressive
order severe, and longstanding and undiagnosed Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder, as w ell as a personality style that significantly interfere[d] with
interpersonal interactions. Id. at 326. According to D r. Brooks, these
circumstances adversely affected his ability to function in work and social settings.
Id. at 326-28, 339, 343-44. W hen asked to comment on D r. Brooks diagnosis,
Dr. Radecki concurred with her overall findings that M r. Aragon had expressed
significant depression and that he demonstrated persistent psychological
stressors. Id. at 346. He also described M r. Aragons condition as possible
depression. Id.
Under Social Security Administration regulations, the opinion of a treating
physician concerning the nature and extent of a claimants disability 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 claimants] case record. Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d
758, 762 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting 20 C.F.R. 416.927(d)(2)); accord 20 C.F.R.
404.1527(d)(2). M r. Aragons claim that the ALJ rejected Dr. Radeckis opinion
in favor of the opinions of the non-examining physicians is not supported by the
-6-
impairment, noting that M r. Aragon did not allege a mental impairment on his
application, but after his claim was denied initially, he asserted that his worsening
depression contributed to his disability. In addition, two state non-examining
consulting physicians concluded that M r. Aragon did not have a severe mental
impairment. Id. at 192, 321.
The ALJ rejected Dr. Brooks opinion and diagnosis, giving numerous
legitimate reasons for doing so, including the fact that she saw M r. Aragon only
one time to provide evidence for his disability claim; she took much of the
information for her report from M r. Aragons wife, rather than from him; her
assessments were not supported by her report of the interview and testing;
M r. Aragon did not engage her for therapy, but only for a report; and she found
that M r. Aragon had a difficult personality style that significantly interfered with
interpersonal interactions, but she did not explain why he had been able to work in
the past despite his difficult personality style, and she provide[d] no indication
that [M r. Aragon] [was] any different in personality than when he was working on
a regular and continuing basis. R. Vol. I at 20. The ALJ considered the
appropriate factors for deciding what weight, if any, to give to Dr. Brooks opinion
and she gave specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting it. Watkins v. Barnhart,
350 F.3d 1297, 1301 (10th Cir. 2003); 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d) & 416.927(d)
(listing factors to be considered when deciding what weight [to be given] to any
medical opinion). The ALJs analysis of Dr. Brooks report and the other
-8-