F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 18 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
WILLIAM YAHOLA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-5026
(D.C. No. 95-CV-1016)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (N.D. Okla.)
Social Security Administration, *
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and BRISCOE, 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
*
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), Kenneth S. Apfel is substituted for
John J. Callahan, former Acting Commissioner of Social Security, as the
defendant in this action.
**
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the magistrate judge 1 affirming the denial
of his application for supplemental security income benefits. The administrative
law judge (ALJ) recognized that plaintiff’s residual functional capacity was, for
various medical reasons, now limited to sedentary work, precluding his return to
the physical occupations he had held in the past. Nevertheless, based on expert
vocational testimony, the ALJ determined plaintiff could still perform unskilled
assembly and inspection work, and, accordingly, found him not disabled at step
five of the controlling sequential analysis. See generally Williams v. Bowen, 844
F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988). We review this decision to determine whether
it is supported by substantial evidence and adheres to applicable legal standards.
See Berna v. Chater, 101 F.3d 631, 632 (10th Cir. 1996). The scope of our
review, however, is limited to those issues preserved for and presented on appeal.
See id. For reasons explained below, we affirm.
In proceedings before the magistrate judge, plaintiff challenged the denial
of benefits in two specific respects. First, he claimed the ALJ relied on selective
portions of a consulting psychologist’s report and ignored indications of cognitive
1
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties consented to proceed before
the magistrate judge. Accordingly, our jurisdiction arises under § 636(c)(3) and
28 U.S.C. § 1291.
-2-
impairment that should have been explored through further psychological, and if
necessary vocational, assessment. Second, he contended the Appeals Council did
not adequately consider additional evidence of intellectual limitation presented on
administrative review. He now reasserts these arguments, along with objections
to the ALJ’s pain analysis which he did not raise before the magistrate judge. See
Appendix (App.) at 207-14. We limit our consideration to the two issues
preserved below. See Crow v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir. 1994).
At the evidentiary hearing, the ALJ noted there were no records regarding
plaintiff’s basic cognitive functioning. Afterwards, to complete the record, the
ALJ sent plaintiff to psychologist John W. Hickman, Ph.D., for evaluation of his
intellectual ability. Dr. Hickman interviewed plaintiff and administered the
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Revised, on which plaintiff scored a full scale
I.Q. of 71. See App. at 145-46. Dr. Hickman ultimately rated plaintiff as “good,”
i.e., “limited but satisfactory,” on such pertinent capacities as independent
functioning, maintaining attention and concentration, relating to supervisors and
co-workers, and dealing with simple or detailed job instructions. Id. at 148-49.
As these findings were compatible with hypothetical testimony already obtained
from the vocational expert at the hearing, see id. at 190-95, the ALJ concluded
plaintiff’s intellectual capacity did not preclude his performance of the unskilled
sedentary jobs the expert had identified.
-3-
Plaintiff argues, however, that in focusing solely on capacities specifically
assessed, the ALJ ignored indications that other cognitive functioning, in
particular memory, required additional evaluation, so that similarly explicit
findings could be made thereon and related to the vocational expert’s testimony.
The primary basis for this contention is one statement from Dr. Hickman’s report:
“However, there is also a possibility, since he is reported to have diabetes, there
may be some degree of cognitive deterioration occurring, particularly with
memory functions, that it might be worthwhile to further check up through the
administration of the Wechsler Memory Scale.” Id. at 146-47. We reject this line
of argument for its faulty factual premise and flawed legal conclusion.
The above quote is preceded by a passage expressing the suspicion that
plaintiff’s test scores were “somewhat under-estimations of his intellectual
functioning and there [were] questions as to his degree of motivation while taking
the test which was also noticed in the clinical interview.” Id. at 146. Thus, as the
magistrate judge evidently concluded, Dr. Hickman may have suggested the
memory test simply to rule out/in a contributing cognitive cause--and thereby rule
in/out the motivational explanation--for the unexpectedly low I.Q. score, not to
assess another cognitive impairment unreflected in the score. In short, “[p]laintiff
had an I.Q. of at least 71,” and perhaps much higher, depending on whether
memory or just poor motivation was involved. Id. at 231.
-4-
In any event, however Dr. Hickman’s report is interpreted, that report and
the record as a whole do not establish an issue requiring further evidentiary
development. We will find a failure to develop the record where (1) the claimant
has “in some fashion raise[d] the issue sought to be developed” by demonstrating
“a reasonable possibility that a severe impairment exists,” Hawkins v. Chater, 113
F.3d 1162, 1167 (10th Cir. 1997), and (2) the available “records do not supply
enough information to make an informed decision” about the vocational effect of
the asserted impairment, Boyd v. Sullivan, 960 F.2d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 1992).
The first condition is perhaps arguably met here, though Dr. Hickman’s tentative
speculation that “it might be worthwhile” to test the “possibility” that “some
degree” of cognitive deterioration “may be” occurring, falls considerably short of
the medical findings deemed sufficient to trigger the duty to obtain additional
evidence in Hawkins. See 113 F.3d at 1169. As for the second condition,
however, Dr. Hickman’s express finding that plaintiff had a satisfactory ability to
understand and remember simple/detailed instructions, see App. at 149, supplied
all that was necessary for the ALJ to make an informed decision regarding his
ability to perform the occupations identified by the vocational expert.
Finally, plaintiff contends the Appeals Council erred in failing to order a
remand on the basis of two documents submitted after the ALJ’s decision. The
first was a report addressing plaintiff’s ability to perform “manual labor,” which
-5-
stated that he currently could not do so and “doubtful[ly]” ever would. Id. at 13.
The second was an achievement test scoring plaintiff’s reading and math skills at
a fourth-grade level. The Appeals Council considered these materials, but found
them essentially consistent with the evidence relied on by the ALJ. We have
reviewed the entire record and agree that “consideration of the new evidence does
not require a change in the outcome: the ALJ’s determination remains supported
by substantial evidence.” O’Dell v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 855, 859 (10th Cir. 1994).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-6-