Neel v. Social Security Administration

Filing 21

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary reversing and, remanding case (terminates case) (kjp, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ROBERT NEEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,1
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-CV-572-PJC

OPINION AND ORDER
Claimant, Robert Neel (“Neel”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), requests judicial review
of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”)
denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income
benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(c)(1) and (3), the parties have consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.
Any appeal of this order will be directly to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Neel appeals the
decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and asserts that the Commissioner erred
because the ALJ incorrectly determined that Neel was not disabled. For the reasons discussed
below, the Court REVERSES AND REMANDS the Commissioner’s decision.
Claimant’s Background
Neel was 53 years old at the time of the hearing before the ALJ on November 29, 2010.

1

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1), Carolyn W. Colvin, the current Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, is substituted for Michael J. Astrue as
Defendant in this action. No further action need be taken to continue this suit by reason of the
last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

(R. 26). He was 5'10" tall, and he weighed about 240 pounds. Id. He had a sixth grade
education. (R. 27). He served in the Army from 1973 to 1979. (R. 27-28). Neel stated that he
had worked at a grocery store cooking 40 to 50 pound chickens. (R. 40). That job exposed him
to extreme heat, especially in the summer time. (R. 40-41). He testified that he last worked as a
greenskeeper in 2009, and had stopped working after experiencing heatstroke. (R. 29). He made
no attempt to return to work. Id.
Neel said the he was unable to work because he now had a low tolerance for heat,
including dizziness and body cramps. (R. 30-31). He also experienced shoulder pains,
numbness and tingling in his hands and arms, and had difficulty holding on to things with his
hands. (R. 31). He said that he could not reach very high either. (R. 32). At the time of the
hearing, Neel said he was only able to lift ten pounds without pain. (R. 41). According to Neel,
his wife had to help him with putting on clothes and bathing. Id. He said that he could not bend
over far enough to put his own socks on. Id. Neel said that he had to wear house shoes because
of swelling in his feet. Id.
Neel testified that if he sat too long, his hips would swell up and he would feel tingling
all the way to his feet. (R. 33). He also said that if he stood too long, his feet became swollen
and he felt pain. Id. He estimated he could stand only three to five minutes before he needed to
sit down. (R. 33-34). He could walk less than a block. (R. 34). Neel said he could only sit 15
to 20 minutes before he had to move, stand, or stretch. (R. 35). He reported that he did not do
lawn work, he had to sit if he went to the grocery store with his wife, and he could not carry
groceries into the house when they returned. Id. Neel also stated that he could not cook a full
meal because he could not stand that long. Id.
Neel reported he had difficulty reading and following instructions. (R. 36). He could

2

follow three or four-step instructions if the process was explained to him and if he completed the
steps immediately. Id. If he waited, then he would forget the process. Id. He said his wife had
to pay bills and write checks. Id.
Neel said that in a typical day, he would go to bed early after taking medication, but he
would be awakened by pain about 12:00 a.m. or 1:00 a.m. (R. 36). He would get up, walk
around, and take another sleeping pill. (R. 36-37). Then, he usually woke up two or three more
times until he would awaken for the day around 6:00 a.m. or 7:00 a.m. Id. Neel reported that he
usually made a pot of coffee in the morning and then sat on his couch for 15 to 20 minutes
before he needed to get up and walk around. Id. He would repeat this process throughout the
day. Id. He said he would try to take a nap, but could not sleep more than 30 to 40 minutes
without pain in his hip and shoulder. Id.
Neel said he would get easily irritated with strangers. (R. 38). He did not have a driver’s
license and relied on others for rides. (R. 41). When he would ride in a car, he had to leave
early so that he could take frequent breaks. (R. 38-39). He said he was not able to watch a
complete TV show without getting up to walk around. (R. 39). He and his wife were not able to
attend social activities, such as going out to dinner, because he was not able to sit down for that
length of time. Id.
Neel said that he had reduced his smoking from two-and-a-half packs per day to a packand-a-half per day. (R. 40). He also quit drinking a month before the hearing because the doctor
at the Veterans’ Administration (“VA”) told him that he needed to quit drinking before he could
start treatment for Hepatitis C. Id.
On May 9, 2008, Neel was seen by Wellington G. Robbins, M.D., at the VA Outpatient
Clinic for a follow-up on his hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high lipids,

3

degenerative joint disease, and increased glucose. (R. 199-211). He reported that he had been
feeling well and had no complaints except frequent nighttime urination. (R. 200-01). Neel had a
history of hypertension but had been faithful in taking his medications and monitoring his blood
pressure at home. (R. 200). On the visit, he was re-established with the clinic for routine health
maintenance. Id. Noted surgical history included mitral valvuloplasty2 and lumbar discectomy.3
Id. It was noted that Neel smoked a pack-and-a-half of cigarettes per day, drank 12 beers three
days per week, and weighed 217 pounds. (R. 200-01). Neel was assessed with having
hypertension and back pain. (R. 203). Lab results and medications were reviewed with him. (R.
204). Dr. Robbins discussed controlling alcohol use and tapering toward discontinued use of
tobacco. Id. Neel was instructed to return to the clinic in nine months. Id.
On March 12, 2009, Neel presented to Dr. Robbins at the VA for a follow-up visit. (R.
188-97). His weight had increased to 232 pounds and weight loss counseling was provided. (R.
188-89). A weight management treatment program was discussed and offered to Neel, but he
was not interested at that time. (R. 190). Neel reported a decrease in cigarette smoking to one
pack-per-day. (R. 189). He was offered cessation counseling, but he indicated an unwillingness
to quit at that time. (R. 196). Neel reported a decrease in his alcohol consumption, two to four
times per month at one or two drinks per consumption. (R. 192).
Also during the March 12, 2009 visit, Neel reported increased pain in his left leg and
right shoulder. (R. 193). Neel reported increased insomnia and that he was drinking more to
compensate. (R. 194). Examination revealed right shoulder tenderness with no impingment and

2

Mitral valvuloplasty is surgery to repair a left valve of the heart. Dorland’s Illustrated
Medical Dictionary 1188, 2051 (29th ed. 2000) (hereinafter “Dorland’s”).
3

Lumbar discectomy is the surgical removal of a disk from the lumbar spine. Dorland’s
at 553, 1092.
4

tenderness in the left hip. Id. Neel was assessed with right shoulder bursitis4, left hip bursitis,
hypertension, tobacco use, alcohol abuse, and insomnia. (R. 195). Neel was instructed to return
to the clinic in nine months. Id.
On March 13, 2009, Dr. Robbins mailed Neel a copy of his lab results along with a letter
indicating an abnormality in liver function tests. (R. 187). Dr. Robbins advised Neel to “cut
back a lot on the alcohol intake, and ideally would . . . completely before your liver becomes
permanently damaged.” Id.
On August 5, 2009, Neel was treated by Michael V. Priest, D.O., at Pawhuska Hospital
Emergency Room for possible heatstroke. (R. 238-43). He complained of abdominal cramps,
shortness of breath, dizziness, nausea, hand cramps, and leg cramps. (R. 238). Neel reported
that he had become very pale while working outside doing landscaping. (R. 243). He had been
drinking fluids and had not stopped sweating, but he felt weak and could no longer tolerate the
muscle cramps. Id. After receiving IV fluids and rest, he was discharged alert and oriented with
normal vital signs. (R. 239-41). He was given instructions to rest 24 hours, stay hydrated, limit
exposure to heat, and follow-up with his preferred care provider if symptoms returned. (R. 24041).
On December 1, 2009, Neel was seen by Dr. Robbins at the VA for a routine follow-up
visit. (R.176-86). He reported increased muscle pain since his heat-related injury in August.
(R. 177). Neel complained of pain in his legs, shoulders, hips, and feet. (R. 181). He reported
chronic pain for more than three months and a pain intensity level of five. Id. The pain was
described as a dull ache that lasted all day, every day. Id. The pain was better with medication

4

Bursitis is “inflamation of a bursa . . . .” Dorland’s at 269. Bursa is “a sac or saclike
cavity filled with viscid fluid and situated at places in the tissues at which friction would
otherwise develop.” Id. at 266.
5

and worse if he sat or stood too long. Id. Dr. Robbins noted that gait and station were normal.
(R. 178). Neel believed his heart was doing well and he had no chest pains. (R. 177).
Examination revealed only a mild heart murmur. Id.
On the December 1 visit, Neel was assessed with hypertension, mitral valve disease, and
muscle cramps and pains. Id. Lab tests showed mild abnormal liver function and elevated
lipids. (R. 179). Neel weighed 246 lbs and “was provided with weight loss counseling for
associated medical conditions.” (R. 179-80). “This included suggestions on reducing caloric
intake, on progressive use of excercise, and the offer of help from [the VA’s] Nutrition Service.”
(R. 180). Neel received education and literature regarding pain management. (R. 181). Neel
reported smoking one-and-a-half packs of cigarettes per day. (R. 182). He also reported feeling
down, depressed, and hopeless several days per week. (R. 184). Neel was advised to return in
three months. (R. 179).
On May 26, 2010, Neel presented to Dr. Robbins at the VA for a follow-up appointment.
(R. 245-55). He reported that he had not improved; he had increased pain in his right shoulder
and right hip, and his activity level had declined because of muscle and joint pain. (R. 253). His
joints were not hot or tender to touch and his muscles were not tender. Id. Neel reported
experiencing bi-temporal pulsating headaches that lasted one to three hours. Id. During those
times, Neel could not tolerate light and to find relief, he would need to sit in a dark room and
rest. Id. Eyes, ears, neck, and throat were normal. Id. Neck, chest, and abdomen were normal.
Id. Both shoulders were noted as having a decreased range of motion, with the right shoulder
worse than the left shoulder. Id. Discomfort in passive range of motion, tightness in the
hamstrings, and tenderness with stress of the sacroiliac joints were all noted. (R. 253-54). Gait
and station were normal and deep tendon reflexes were normal. (R. 254). Neel was assessed

6

with joint pain, generalized muscle pain, and hypertension. Id.
During the visit on May 26, 2010, x-rays were taken of Neel’s shoulders, hips, and
lumbar spine. Id. Minimal to mild degenerative joint change was noted in both the right and left
shoulder, as well as minimal to mild degenerative change in both hip joints. (R. 245-47). There
was moderate degenerative change in the lumbosacral spine and “[c]alcification of the iliac
artery.” (R. 246).
During the visit on May 26, 2010, Neel was counseled on alcohol use and associated
problems, was advised to abstain from use, but he declined to consider substance abuse
treatment. (R. 254). He was also given information to help him quit smoking, but Neel again
indicated an unwillingness to quit. (R. 255).
On May 26, 2010, Neel completed a “Handicapped Parking Placard Application” with
assistance from Dr. Robbins. (R. 244). Dr. Robbins marked on the application that Neel could
not “walk 200 feet without stopping to rest” and “[was] severely limited in his [ ] ability to walk
due to an arthritic, neurological, or orthopedic condition . . . .” Id. The request was for a five
year placard. Id.
On June 29, 2010, Neel completed a “Discharge Application: Total and Permanent
Disability”5 with assistance from Dr. Robbins. (R. 256-57). Dr. Robbins diagnosed Neel with
generalized myositis6 and degenerative joint disease. (R. 257). He described the severity of
Neel’s condition as intractable muscle and joint pain. Id. Dr. Robbins marked on the application
that Neel could not sit longer than 30 minutes and walking was limited to less than 100 feet. Id.

5

This form was an application for relief from student loan obligations due to total and
permanent disability. (R. 256).
6

Myositis is “inflamation of a voluntary muscle.” Dorland’s at 1244.
7

He noted that Neel was very slow at performing his activities of daily living but there were no
social or behavioral limitations. Id.
On August 3, 2010, Dr. Robbins completed a “Medical Source Opinion of Residual
Functional Capacity” form indicating that Neel could stand/walk less than two hours in an eight
hour workday. (R. 258). Medical findings to support Dr. Robbins assessment were noted as
“[g]eneralized muscle pain, decreased range of motion in shoulders and hips.” Id.
On August 20, 2010, Neel underwent Hepatitis C testing at the VA. (R. 260-62). On
September 13, 2010, Richard Jesudass, M.D., noted his follow-up conversation with Neel
regarding the Hepatitis C test. (R. 259, 263-64). Neel was advised that he needed to stop
smoking and drinking. (R. 259). Dr. Jesudass indicated that Neel would be ineligible for
Hepatitis C treatment until he was free from drinking alcohol for at least six months. Id.
Because Neel suffered from chronic bronchitis and early COPD, the doctor advised him to quit
smoking. Id. Neel agreed to quit both, but Dr. Jesudass noted his doubt that Neel was sincere
about his desire to quit. Id. Dr. Jesudass recommended both the alcohol rehabilitation and
smoking cessation clinics; but acknowledged that both would cause a financial burden on Neel
because he lacked income. Id.
On December 19, 2009, Neel was examined by agency consultant David Wiegman,
M.D., for complaints of back and leg pain, right shoulder pain, and headaches. (R. 221-27).
Neel reported a history of back injury, lower back surgery, and chronic pain with associated leg
pain. (R. 221). He reported a decreased range of motion and pain in right shoulder from
previous injury. Id. Neel reported experiencing headaches lasting an hour or two per day that
would get better with Ibuprofen. Id. He reported that because of back and foot pain, he could
not walk more than a block and could not stand more than approximately ten minutes or lift more

8

than 20 pounds. Id. His reported daily activities were “not much.” Id.
Dr. Wiegman’s musculoskeletal examination revealed:
Arm and leg strength is normal at 5/5. Grip strength is normal at 5/5. Arm and
leg range of motion is normal except for his right shoulder, he can’t abduct his
right shoulder past 90 degrees. Back exam, the claimant has a slightly decreased
extension at 15 degrees and he does have pain on all movements of his back but
no significant tenderness to palpation over his back. Neck exam, is normal with
normal range of motion and no significant pain. There is no joint swelling,
erythema, effusion, or deformities noted.
(R. 222). Dr. Wiegman also noted that Neel “had a normal symmetric steady gait. He [could]
walk on his toes and heels separately and he was able to walk heel-to-toe fairly well. He had
good coordination with normal opposition of the thumb to fingers.” Id.
On January 13, 2010, agency consultant, Luther Woodcock, M.D., completed a “Physical
Residual Functional Capacity Assessment.” (R. 229-36). Dr. Woodcock found that Neel could
occasionally lift and/or carry 50 pounds and could frequently lift and/or carry 25 pounds. (R.
230). He found that Neel could stand and/or walk with normal breaks approximately six hours in
an eight hour workday and could sit and/or walk with normal breaks approximately six hours in
an eight hour workday. Id. He found that Neel’s ability to otherwise push and/or pull was
unlimited. Id. In explaining his findings, Dr. Woodcock summarized Neel’s complaints and
reviewed Dr. Wiegman’s examination. Id.
Dr. Woodcock opined that Neel had no postural limitations except for ocassional
kneeling. (R. 231). He found that Neel had no manipulative limitations except for only
“[o]ccasional overhead reaching.” (R. 232). There were no established visual limitations,
communicative limitations, or environmental limitations. (R. 232-33).
Procedural History
Neel filed applications in September 2009 for Title II disability insurance benefits and for

9

Title XVI supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§
401 et seq. (R. 102-09). Neel alleged onset of disability as of August 5, 2009. (R. 106). The
applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. (R. 55-62, 68-72). A hearing before
ALJ Charles Headrick was held on November 29, 2010. (R. 21-48). By decision dated
December 8, 2010, the ALJ found that Neel was not disabled. (R. 7-18). On September 27,
2012, the Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ’s findings. (R. 1-6). Thus, the decision of
the ALJ represents a final decision for purposes of this appeal. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481.
Social Security Law and Standard of Review
Disability under the Social Security Act is defined as the “inability to engage in any
substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental
impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). A claimant is disabled under the Act only if his
“physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to
do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in
any other kind of substantial gainful work in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
Social Security regulations implement a five-step sequential process to evaluate a disability
claim. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.7 See also Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750 (10th Cir. 1988)

7

Step One requires the claimant to establish that he is not engaged in substantial gainful
activity, as defined by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1510. Step Two requires that the claimant establish that
he has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limit his
ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If the claimant is engaged in
substantial gainful activity (Step One) or if the claimant’s impairment is not medically severe
(Step Two), disability benefits are denied. At Step Three, the claimant’s impairment is
compared with certain impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App.1 (“Listings”). A
claimant suffering from a listed impairment or impairments “medically equivalent” to a listed
impairment is determined to be disabled without further inquiry. If not, the evaluation proceeds
to Step Four, where the claimant must establish that he does not retain the residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) to perform his past relevant work. If the claimant’s Step Four burden is met,
the burden shifts to the Commissioner to establish at Step Five that work exists in significant
numbers in the national economy which the claimant, taking into account his age, education,
10

(detailing steps). “If a determination can be made at any of the steps that a claimant is or is not
disabled, evaluation under a subsequent step is not necessary.” Id.
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited in scope by 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). This Court’s review is limited to two inquiries: first, whether the decision was supported
by substantial evidence; and, second, whether the correct legal standards were applied. Hamlin
v. Barnhart, 365 F.3d 1208, 1214 (10th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted).
Substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. Id. The court’s review is based on the record taken as a whole, and the
court will “meticulously examine the record in order to determine if the evidence supporting the
agency’s decision is substantial, taking ‘into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from
its weight.’” Id. (quoting Washington v. Shalala, 37 F.3d 1437, 1439 (10th Cir. 1994)). The
court “may neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute” its discretion for that of the
Commissioner. Hamlin, 365 F.3d at 1214 (quotation omitted).
Decision of the Administrative Law Judge
The ALJ found that Neel met insured status requirements through December 31, 2013.
(R. 12). At Step One, the ALJ found that Neel had not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since his alleged onset date of August 5, 2009. Id. At Step Two, the ALJ found that Neel had
severe impairments of back disorder, unspecified arthopathies, and Hepatitis C. Id. At Step
Three, the ALJ found that Neel’s impairments, or combination of impairments, did not meet any
Listing. (R. 13).

work experience, and RFC, can perform. See Dikeman v. Halter, 245 F.3d 1182, 1184 (10th Cir.
2001). Disability benefits are denied if the Commissioner shows that the impairment which
precluded the performance of past relevant work does not preclude alternative work. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520.
11

The ALJ determined that Neel had the RFC to perform a full range of light work, with
the additional limitation of occasional stooping and a limited ability to reach overhead. Id. At
Step Four, the ALJ found that Neel could not perform any past relevant work. (R. 16). At Step
Five, the ALJ found that there were jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that
Neel could perform, considering his age, education, work experience, and RFC. (R. 17). Thus,
the ALJ found that Neel was not disabled from August 5, 2009 through the date of the decision.
Id.
Review
Neel argues that the ALJ’s decision should be reversed, asserting that the ALJ failed to
properly consider his treating physician’s opinions and that the ALJ’s credibility assessment was
flawed. The Court finds that this case must be reversed and remanded because the ALJ’s
credibility assessment was not legally sufficient. Because reversal is required due to errors in
the ALJ’s credibility assessment, the other issue raised by Neel is not addressed.
Credibility determinations by the trier of fact are given great deference. Hamilton v.
Secy. of Health & Human Servs., 961 F.2d 1495, 1499 (10th Cir. 1992).
The ALJ enjoys an institutional advantage in making [credibility determinations].
Not only does an ALJ see far more social security cases than do appellate judges, [the
ALJ] is uniquely able to observe the demeanor and gauge the physical abilities of the
claimant in a direct and unmediated fashion.
White v. Barnhart, 287 F.3d 903, 910 (10th Cir. 2001). In evaluating credibility, an ALJ must
give specific reasons that are closely linked to substantial evidence. See Kepler v. Chater, 68
F.3d 387, 391 (10th Cir. 1995); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186.
The Court is unable to find any discussion of Neel’s credibility that approaches the
required standard of providing specific reasons closely linked to substantial evidence. The only
language addressing credibility is a boilerplate provision that Neel’s “statements concerning the
12

intensity, persistence and limiting effects of [his] symptoms are not credible to the extent they
are inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity assessment.” (R. 14). The use of
boilerplate language in Social Security disability cases was discussed and discouraged by the
Tenth Circuit in Hardman v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 676, 679 (10th Cir. 2004). The court explained
that boilerplate language was a conclusion in the guise of findings, whereas the task of the ALJ
is to explain the specific facts of the case before him and how those facts led him to his decision.
Id. Boilerplate statements fail to inform the reviewing court “in a meaningful, reviewable way of
the specific evidence the ALJ considered.” Id. See also Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640, 64446 (7th Cir. 2012) (opinion authored by Judge Richard Posner criticizing the Social Security
Administration’s use of “templates” in ALJ disability decisions).
The undersigned is mindful that the simple inclusion of boilerplate, inapplicable, or
improper language does not automatically indicate that the ALJ’s credibility analysis is fatally
flawed. Boilerplate provisions are not harmful in and of itself, but they are not a substitute for
actual analysis of the question of credibility by the ALJ. Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d
1156, 1170 (10th Cir. 2012) (“boilerplate is problematic only when it appears ‘in the absence of
a more thorough analysis’”) (quoting Hardman, 362 F.3d at 679).
After the initial boilerplate introduction, the ALJ summarized medical records from 2009
and 2010. (R. 14-16). He also discussed the examination of agency consultant Dr. Wiegman
and the opinion evidence from Dr. Robbins. Id. The ALJ did provide an analysis explaining
why the opinions of Neel’s treating physician were not entitled to controlling weight, but the
ALJ failed to include any discussion concerning Neel’s credibility. Id. The ALJ did not
affirmatively link any specific reasons for discounting Neel’s credibility with any evidence,
much less with substantial evidence, as required. See Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1172 (citing

13

Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1173 (10th Cir. 2005)). The ALJ simply concluded that he:
[did] not discount all of the claimant’s complaints. The [ALJ] concludes that there
are objective findings that support the claimant’s allegations of back disorder and
unspecified arthopathies. Therefore, the claimant’s residual functional capacity is
reduced to performing no more than a range of light and sedentary work activity. The
[ALJ] further finds that the claimant’s residual functional capacity is reasonable, and
that the claimant could function within those limitation without experiencing
significant exacerbation of his symptoms.
(R. 16). This provision is also conclusory boilerplate and it does not illuminate any specific,
reviewable reasons why the ALJ found Neel to be less than fully credible. Hardman, 362 F.3d at
678-81. Lack of a credibility analysis requires reversal. Id.
While there may have been sufficient reasons with supporting evidence that could justify
an adverse credibility determination, the undersigned finds that the Court cannot make that
determination without impermissibly substituting its judgment for that of the ALJ. Peeper v.
Astrue, 418 Fed. Appx. 760, 766 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (citing Allen v. Barnhart, 357
F.3d 1140, 1142, 1145 (10th Cir. 2004)). On remand, the ALJ should provide a thorough
analysis of Neel’s subjective complaints, including a discussion of factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §
404.1529(c). Sistler v. Astrue, 410 Fed. Appx. 112, 117 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished); Hamby
v. Astrue, 260 Fed. Appx. 108, 113 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).
Because the errors of the ALJ related to the credibility assessment require reversal, the
undersigned does not address the remaining contention of Neel. On remand, the Commissioner
should ensure that any new decision sufficiently addresses all issues raised by Neel.
The undersigned emphasizes that “[n]o particular result” is dictated on remand.
Thompson v. Sullivan, 987 F.2d 1482, 1492-93 (10th Cir. 1993). This case is remanded only to
assure that the correct legal standards are invoked in reaching a decision based on the facts of the
case. Angel v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1208, 1213-14 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Huston v. Bowen, 838

14

F.2d 1125, 1132 (10th Cir. 1988)).
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, the Court REVERSES AND REMANDS the decision of the
Commissioner denying disability benefits to Claimant for further proceedings consistent with
this Order.
Dated this 4th day of November, 2013.

15