Love v. Colvin

3 Citing cases

  1. Diana L. v. Saul

    CIVIL ACTION No. 18-2709-JWL (D. Kan. Nov. 7, 2019)   Cited 3 times
    In Diana Lynne L., the plaintiff sought review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny her disability insurance benefits claim.

    Id. He argues that the Tenth Circuit rejected Plaintiff's argument in Conkle v. Astrue, 487 F. App'x 461, 462 (10th Cir. 2012), this court rejected the argument in Love v. Colvin, Civ. A. No. 14-1078-JWL, 2015 WL 1530599, at *10 (D. Kan. Apr. 6, 2015), and the court should likewise reject the argument here. B. Standard for Using the Grids

  2. Cotten v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

    Case No. CIV-16-810-SM (W.D. Okla. Mar. 9, 2017)

    The law nonetheless requires the ALJ to consider obesity when documented in the record. See, e.g., Fagan v. Astrue, 231 F. App'x 835, 837 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing SSR 02-1p, 2002 WL 34686281); Love v. Colvin, No. 14-1078-JWL, 2015 WL 1530599, at *2 (D. Kan. Apr. 6, 2015) ("[W]hile there is a requirement that obesity be considered and that it be considered in combination with other impairments, there is no requirement that it be discussed in a particular manner or at a particular time in a disability decision."); but see Wall, 561 F.3d at 1062 (instructing that an ALJ is generally entitled to "rely on the claimant's counsel to structure and present claimant's case in a way that the claimant's claims are adequately explored," in finding that the ALJ exercised good judgment in "refusing to delve more deeply into the mental impairments Claimant now emphasizes on appeal") (citation omitted). On remand, the ALJ should consider the documentation of Plaintiff's obesity in the record and whether Plaintiff has "point[ed] to any medical evidence indicating her obesity resulted in functional limitations."

  3. Van Metre v. Colvin

    Civil Action No. 15-cv-02064-NYW (D. Colo. Sep. 22, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    " Rodman v. Astrue, No. 09-cv-00770-WYD, 2011 WL 1119875, at *4 (D. Colo. Mar. 28, 2011) (citing Baker, 84 F. App'x at 14) (recognizing "the ALJ must assess the effects of claimant's obesity in conjunction with her back problem and explain how [h]e reached [his] conclusions on whether obesity caused any physical or mental limitations.") (internal quotation marks omitted, citation omitted, brackets in original). See also Love v. Colvin, No. 14-1078-JWL, 2015 WL 1530599, at *2 (D. Kan. Apr. 6, 2015) ("SSR 021p requires that obesity be considered in determining whether an individual has a medically determinable impairment, whether the individual's impairments are severe, whether the individual's impairments meet or equal the requirements of a listed impairment, and whether the individual's impairments prevent her from doing past relevant work or any other work in the economy."). The court notes that Ms. Van Metre did not list obesity on her initial DIB application, see [#13-5 at 120-121], and did not raise obesity as an issue during the hearing before the ALJ, at which she was represented.