Fager v. SSA: A Tough Lesson for Disability Appeals

Another day, another uphill climb for Social Security disability claimants.

The Tenth Circuit recently issued another affirmance — this time in Fager v. Commissioner of Social Security, upholding the denial of SSI benefits. The opinion runs 21 pages, so let’s break down the key takeaways.

Background

Fager, a former legal secretary and housekeeper with a degree in anthropology, applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in 2017. She alleged disability due to:

• Back injuries

• Obesity

• Anxiety

• Other mental and physical impairments

  
  

After multiple administrative reviews and even a federal court remand, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) again denied benefits. The ALJ concluded that while her impairments were severe, they did not meet or equal the listed criteria for disability.

Key Issues on Appeal

1. ALJ’s Handling of Mental Health Evidence

Fager argued that the ALJ improperly weighed medical opinions about her mental impairments, especially her ability to sustain work despite anxiety and depression.

• She claimed the ALJ overlooked medical evidence indicating she might have emotional breakdowns at work.

• If these limitations had been accepted, the vocational expert (VE) would likely have testified that no jobs were available for her.

  
  

2. Credibility of Symptom Testimony

The ALJ found inconsistencies between Fager’s claimed limitations and the medical record, invoking SSR 16-3p principles.

• The court deferred to the ALJ’s discretion, emphasizing that subjective complaints must align with objective medical evidence.

• This is a common challenge in disability cases involving pain, fatigue, and mental health.

  
  

3. Step Five Vocational Analysis

At Step Five of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ relied on the VE’s testimony to find that Fager could perform other work such as:

• Final Assembler

• Addresser

• Touch-Up Screener

  
  

Fager challenged whether these jobs were consistent with her limitations—particularly her need for breaks due to anxiety.

Court’s Reasoning and Takeaways

📌 Substantial Evidence Standard Remains a Major Hurdle

The Tenth Circuit reaffirmed that courts do not reweigh evidence.If the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence—even minimally—courts will uphold the decision.

📌 Mental Health Claims Face Higher Scrutiny

This case highlights the difficulty of winning appeals based on mental health impairments.Courts tend to affirm ALJ decisions unless there is a clear procedural or legal error in how the evidence was evaluated.

📌 Vocational Expert Testimony Is Crucial

The VE’s role at Step Five often decides the case outcome.If the hypothetical questions posed to the VE exclude certain limitations, challenging the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) findings becomes critical.

Practice Tip for Disability Attorneys

If you’re handling similar appeals, focus on identifying inconsistencies in the ALJ’s reasoning. Consider these strategic questions:

• Did the ALJ rely too heavily on daily activities to discount symptoms?

• Were medical opinions improperly weighed or dismissed without adequate explanation?

• Did the ALJ ignore evidence of workplace-related anxiety or episodic mental health symptoms?

  
  

These are often the pressure points in a successful appellate argument.

Q&A: Common Questions About SSA Appeals

Q: Why do courts often side with the SSA in disability appeals?

A: Because of the substantial evidence standard. As long as there is some evidence supporting the ALJ’s findings, appellate courts rarely overturn them—even if another interpretation of the record is possible.

Q: How can claimants strengthen mental health-based disability claims?A: Provide consistent medical documentation, detailed treatment notes, and third-party observations that align with your symptoms. Emotional and functional limitations must be clearly documented over time.

Q: What’s the most common ALJ error to challenge on appeal?

A: The improper weighing of medical opinions—especially when an ALJ dismisses a treating provider’s findings without sufficient reasoning.

Final Thoughts

Fager v. Commissioner, SSA reinforces an unfortunate truth: appellate courts often defer heavily to ALJ decisions, even in complex mental health cases.

For practitioners, success lies in identifying subtle logical inconsistencies, unsupported conclusions, and errors in evaluating opinion evidence. For claimants, persistence and clear medical documentation remain key.

Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.