Justia U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Appellant Taissiya Oleyniikova , an employee of the State of Colorado's Department of Human Services (DHS) Office of Information Tenchology Services brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for damages against the DHS' executive director and some of the agency's employees (Defendants). Appellant challenged the grant of summary judgement in favor of DHS. Plaintiff alleged she was retaliated against in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff emailed a supervisor stating that she felt "insulted" by another co-worker, because that co-worker accused her of lying. Over the next few months, Plaintiff sought a promotion within her department, but claimed that this attempt was thwarted. Plaintiff filed suit in 2009 alleging that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of her right to freedom of speech. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on both claims. Plaintiff then appealed the district court's ruling on the retaliation claim only. Finding that Plaintiff's statements were not on a matter of public concern, the Tenth Circuit concluded Defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

Petitioner Compass Environmental, Inc. challenged a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) which found a serious safety regulation violation and assessed a $5500 penalty against it. Specifically, the Commission held that Compass failed to train a now-deceased employee to recognize and avoid an electrocution hazard presented by a high-voltage overhead powerline at his worksite. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Compass argued that the Commission failed to apply the correct legal test and erred in concluding that a reasonably prudent employer would have anticipated this employee's potential exposure to the power line. "Although Compass might not have been able to predict the manner in which [the employee] would have been exposed to this hazard," the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in holding that Compass should have trained the employee on the fatal danger posed by the high-voltage lines located in the vicinity of his work area. The Court affirmed the Commission's decision.

Plaintiff-Appellant Dana Franklin appealed a district court's order that affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny her application for Social Security disability benefits. Plaintiff alleged disability based on degenerative disc disease, hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis, anxiety and depression. The agency denied her applications initially and on reconsideration. Applying the Medical-Vocational Guidelines as a framework, and and considering the testimony of a vocational expert (VE), the administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Plaintiff raised two issues: (1) the ALJ erred by by failing to evaluate properly the opinions of her treating physician; and (2) the ALJ’s analysis of her credibility was contrary to law and unsupported by substantial evidence. Upon review, the Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate reversible legal error or lack of substantial evidence in the ALJ's treating-physician analysis. Furthermore, the ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff's credibility was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Petitioners Qi Hui Chen and his son, Yiyao Li Chen, natives and citizens of China, sought to overturn Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decisions affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision to deny their requests for asylum and restriction on removal. Qi Hui arrived in the United States in January 1997. He submitted his asylum application in September 2006. Yiyao Li came to the United States in October 2004. He submitted his asylum application in December 2007. Petitioners sought asylum and restriction on removal based on their political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Their applications were based on his opposition to the family-planning policy in China. Qi Hui testified that, at the end of 2006, he and Yiyao Li sent a letter to their church in China suggesting that the church should not endorse the birth-control policy anymore. Qi Hui testified that a few weeks after they sent the letter, his wife received a notice instructing the Chens to surrender. Although the Chens each filed their own asylum applications, they moved to consolidate their removal proceedings. The IJ held one hearing on both applications and issued one decision denying all forms of relief. The BIA affirmed. Although the Tenth Circuit agreed that the better practice would have been for the Chens to file separate petitions for review from the separate BIA decisions, under the circumstances in this case, it was sufficient to file a single petition for review and it was not in the interests of judicial economy to bifurcate the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioners' motion to bifurcate.

Plaintiff-Appellee Denise Zaricor-Ritchie appealed the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits and Supplement Security Income. Plaintiff claimed she was disabled by bipolar disorder and depression. After administrative denials of her claims for benefits, she had two hearings before an ALJ, who concluded she was not disabled at step four of the five-step sequential evaluation process. Plaintiff raised three issues on appeal: (1) the ALJ erred in his treatment of the medical source evidence; (2) the ALJ erred in his credibility assessment; and (3) the ALJ failed to perform a proper analysis in concluding that she could return to her past relevant work as a dishwasher. Taking each of Plaintiff's arguments in turn, the Tenth Circuit found that the ALJ's analysis was sufficient to support its decision. The Court affirmed the Commissioner's denial of benefits.

Petitioner Jose Luis Magallon-Almanza, a native of Mexico, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) order of removal. In the proceedings before the IJ, Petitioner conceded he was removable, but sought a cancellation of removal. The IJ found Petitioner did not meet either of these requirements and therefore denied relief and ordered him removed to Mexico. The BIA examined the evidence of hardship to Petitioner’s United States citizen children and agreed with the IJ that Petitioner did not establish they would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he were removed to Mexico. The BIA also summarily rejected Petitioner’s argument that the IJ applied the wrong legal standards in analyzing his evidence of hardship. The BIA affirmed the IJ's order of removal. The Tenth Circuit's review of the IJ's decision showed no support for Petitioner's arguments raised on appeal. The Court therefore affirmed the IJ's and BIA's decisions.

Petitioner Jean Paul Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged a Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility. Petitioner entered the United States on a B-2 visitor visa and overstayed his visit. Nearly twenty years later, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with remaining in this country without authorization. Petitioner conceded he was removable, but he sought several forms of relief, including adjustment of status. At a hearing, Petitioner testified that he came to this country when he was nine years old and had since been convicted of various crimes as a juvenile and adult, but was attempting to turn his life around. Due to his criminal convictions, however, in particular, two petty theft offenses and two controlled substance violations, the IJ concluded that Petitioner was ineligible for adjustment of status or a waiver of inadmissibility. Alternatively, the IJ ruled that even if Petitioner was eligible for adjustment of status, he did not warrant such discretionary relief because his extensive criminal record outweighed the positive attributes in his case, and there was no evidence of rehabilitation. The IJ thus ordered Petitioner removed to Mexico. The BIA affirmed. Finding that Petitioner characterized his argument "as one based on due process, but he cannot transform his challenge to the BIA’s denial of discretionary relief into a claim of constitutional magnitude for the simple reason that he had no due process interest in obtaining purely discretionary relief." The Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction for further review and dismissed the case.

After developing pain in his neck and shoulders, Petitioner Gordon George was diagnosed with cancer in 2003 and underwent surgery and radiotherapy. During his recovery, he continued to experience pain spanning from his neck to his shoulder and arm. Petitioner applied for disability and supplemental security income benefits. After many and various hearings, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that for the period June 1, 2003 through July 31, 2005, Petitioner was disabled during that period. But the ALJ further found that Petitioner's condition improved dramatically over time and that by August 1, 2005, he no longer met any disability listing. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner raised several challenges to the ALJ's determination that he suffered no legally cognizable disability after August 2005. Upon review, the Court rejected all those challenges, and affirmed for substantially the reasons given by the district court, with one exception. The Court found that the ALJ erred by failing to consider whether, after August 1, 2005, Petitioner suffered from a mental disability. In our case, by contrast, the ALJ has not made any factual findings "one way or the other" about the existence, severity, or functional limitations, if any, imposed by Petitioner's mental condition: "[i]t's entirely possible the ALJ on remand will find Mr. George's mental health issues have no impact on his ability to work." The Court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Plaintiff-Appellant Raymond Boswell appealed the denial of his applications for Social Security benefits. Plaintiff applied for benefits in March 2007. He alleged that he had been unable to work since December 1, 2006 because of degenerative disc disease, bone spurs, and problems with his back, neck, arms, hands, shoulders, and liver. His applications were denied at the administrative level and on reconsideration. The district court accepted the recommendation of a magistrate judge that the Commissioner’s denial of benefits be affirmed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the Commissioner's and district court's decisions: "[Petitioner] asks this court to reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. We are without the authority to do so."

Plaintiff Donna Saterlee appealed a district court order that affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny social security disability and supplemental security income benefits. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits at the last step of the five-step process for determining disability. Plaintiff argued that the ALJ erred by (1) improperly rejecting her hand impairment as medically nondeterminable at step two and consequently not including it in the RFC that formed the basis of the dispositive hypothetical to the Vocational Expert; and (2) failing to perform a proper credibility analysis in determining that complaints of limitations other than, or in excess of, those later included in the RFC were not credible. The Tenth Circuit found that the ALJ was "undeniably wrong" about the lack of documented medical evidence of Plaintiff's condition that gave rise to the alleged numbness, "undercutting the categorical rejection of such an impairment on this threshold basis." The Court remanded the case for an administrative decision that properly accounted for all of the evidence of record.