P.W. v. Commissioner, SSA: Tenth Circuit Clarifies Use of Pre-2017 Medical-Opinion Rules and Re-Affirms the “Substantial Evidence” Deference in Social Security Appeals

1. Introduction

P.W. v. Commissioner, SSA is the latest chapter in a fifteen-year saga over one claimant’s entitlement to disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The claimant, an Army veteran who sustained multiple head injuries in Iraq and who suffers from an array of psychiatric and neurological disorders, contested the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) partially favorable decision, which found her not disabled until her 50^th birthday (May 14, 2018), and disabled thereafter. After the district court affirmed that decision, P.W. appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The Tenth Circuit—without oral argument—issued a non-precedential Order and Judgment on June 11, 2025, affirming the district court “for substantially the same reasons” it had provided. Even though the disposition is unpublished, it crystalises two critical propositions that will guide future litigants and lower-court judges in the circuit:

For disability claims filed before 27 March 2017, the former treating-source hierarchy in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 governs the evaluation of medical opinions, even when the agency’s final administrative decision is issued after that date.
The threshold for appellate reversal under the substantial evidence standard remains “not high,” and circuit courts may summarily affirm by adopting a district court’s cogent rationale when the ALJ’s choice among competing medical views is adequately supported.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The panel (Judges McHugh, Baldock, and Eid) held:

The district court correctly determined that the ALJ’s January 23, 2023 decision was free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence.
The ALJ properly weighed competing medical opinions—including the opinion of consulting psychiatrist Dr. Tracy Gordy—under the pre-2017 regulations.
The ALJ reasonably discounted P.W.’s testimony about the severity of her headaches and neurological limitations, applying the credibility factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) and SSR 16-3p.
The ALJ’s step-five hypothetical to the vocational expert mirrored the residual functional capacity (RFC) that the ALJ ultimately adopted; therefore, the Commissioner met the burden of showing significant jobs existed before May 14, 2018.

Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of disability benefits for the closed period (May 1, 2008–May 13, 2018) and left intact the agency’s finding of disability beginning on the claimant’s 50^th birthday.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97 (2019) – Defined “substantial evidence” as “more than a mere scintilla,” an articulation repeatedly invoked to justify deference to ALJs.
Zoltanski v. FAA, 372 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2004) – Emphasised that a reviewing court may not reweigh evidence when faced with “two fairly conflicting views.”
Robinson v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2004) – Distinguished weight given to treating, examining, and non-examining physicians under the old § 404.1527 hierarchy.
Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007) – Explained the Listings analysis at step 3 of the sequential evaluation.
Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729 (10th Cir. 2005); Barnett v. Apfel, 231 F.3d 687 (10th Cir. 2000); and Bean v. Chater, 77 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 1995) – Reinforced limits on appellate review and the ALJ’s Hypothetical-Question Rule.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Zaldivar, 413 F.3d 119 (1st Cir. 2005) – Cited for the efficiency principle that a court of appeals need not rewrite a thorough lower-court opinion.

These cases together provided the doctrinal scaffolding governing (i) standard of review, (ii) deference to ALJ fact-finding, and (iii) methodological requirements for evaluating medical and lay evidence.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Tenth Circuit’s agreement with the district court turned on two linchpins:

Regulatory Framework.
Because P.W.’s claim was filed in 2009, former 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 applied. Under this framework:
- Treating physician opinions can be entitled to “controlling weight” if well-supported and consistent.
- Examining but non-treating sources receive reduced deference.
- Non-examining agency consultants are generally afforded the least weight.
The ALJ explicitly applied these factors—examining relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization—to every opinion, including Dr. Gordy’s. By acknowledging evidentiary conflicts and offering rationales for discounting certain opinions (e.g., inconsistency with longitudinal records, conservative treatment), the ALJ satisfied the procedural and substantive requisites.
Scope of Appellate Review.
The panel reiterated that substantial evidence review is “highly deferential.” It is not enough for a claimant to show conflicting evidence; she must demonstrate that no reasonable mind could accept the ALJ’s conclusion. Where the district court has “accurately taken the measure of the case,” the Tenth Circuit may summarily affirm rather than duplicate the analysis—echoing Zaldivar’s efficiency principle.

3.3 Impact

Although unpublished, the decision carries persuasive weight within the Tenth Circuit and offers practical guidance nationwide:

Choice-of-Law Point: Administrative and district courts must continue to apply the pre-2017 medical-opinion rules in legacy claims notwithstanding newer regulations. Practitioners who overlook this may have their arguments deemed waived or meritless.
Credibility Findings After SSR 16-3p: The panel’s approval of the ALJ’s symptom-evaluation analysis underscores that an ALJ may still rely on factors such as conservative treatment, activities of daily living, and internal inconsistencies—even though SSR 16-3p removed the term “credibility.”
Streamlined Appellate Disposition: By invoking Metropolitan Life’s rationale, the Tenth Circuit signals that it will conserve judicial resources where the district court’s opinion is “well-reasoned.” Appellate briefs that merely re-argue evidence—rather than pinpoint legal error—will find little traction.
Veterans & Closed-Period Claims: Claimants who age into a favorable grid rule (here, age 50) must still overcome heightened scrutiny when challenging pre-grid denial periods. The decision reminds advocates to marshal robust, contemporaneous medical evidence specific to the earlier timeframe.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Sequential Evaluation Process: A five-step test the Social Security Administration (SSA) uses. Steps 1–4 are claimant’s burden; step 5 is SSA’s.
The Listings: A regulatory catalogue of impairments presumed disabling if criteria are met exactly. Equivalence arguments require detailed medical comparison.
Residual Functional Capacity (RFC): The most a claimant can do despite impairments, expressed in work-related terms (sitting, standing, social limits, etc.).
Substantial Evidence: Not the “majority” of evidence, but merely “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept” to support the ALJ’s conclusion—hence, a deferential standard.
Treating vs. Examining vs. Non-Examining Sources: Treating doctors see the claimant regularly, examining doctors see the claimant once, non-examining doctors review records only. Under pre-2017 rules, treating sources may receive controlling weight.
Grid Rules/Age Categories: Tables in Appendix 2 of the SSA regulations that, in combination with RFC, education, and work history, direct a finding of “disabled” or “not disabled.” Reaching age 50 moved P.W. into a more favorable grid.

5. Conclusion

P.W. v. Commissioner, SSA reaffirms two pillars of Social Security appellate jurisprudence: (1) the vitality of pre-2017 medical-opinion regulations for older claims and (2) the muscular deference embedded in the substantial-evidence standard. While P.W.’s lengthy administrative odyssey underscores the complexity of disability litigation, the Tenth Circuit’s concise affirmance broadcasts a clear message: unless an appellant can demonstrate legal error or an evidentiary void so stark that no reasonable mind could have reached the ALJ’s conclusion, the federal courts will not disturb the Commissioner’s decision. For practitioners, the case serves as both roadmap and cautionary tale—spotlighting the need for meticulous record development, precise legal objections, and a frank appraisal of the deferential lens through which appellate courts view Social Security appeals.