Wilson v. Kijakazi ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Case: 21-60663     Document: 00516375131          Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/29/2022
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    June 29, 2022
    No. 21-60663                         Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Robin Wilson,
    Plaintiff—Appellant,
    versus
    Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
    Defendant—Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 3:20-CV-39
    Before Higginbotham, Haynes, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Robin Wilson appeals the district court’s affirmance of the
    Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for Social
    Security disability and disability insurance benefits.     For the following
    reasons, we AFFIRM.
    *
    Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
    circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
    Case: 21-60663      Document: 00516375131            Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/29/2022
    No. 21-60663
    I.     Background
    Asserting disability beginning on August 1, 2015, Wilson applied for
    disability and disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security
    Act based on her seizure disorder, injured ankle, heart attack, ruptured
    spleen, asthma, and Hepatitis C. See 
    42 U.S.C. § 423
    (d)(1)(A). Her
    application was denied, and she subsequently sought reconsideration,
    alleging an additional condition of social anxiety.         After receiving full
    consideration by an Administrative Law Judge, the Appeals Council, and the
    district court, and losing in each venue, Wilson appealed.
    Wilson has previously worked as a corrections officer, child welfare
    caseworker, probation and parole officer, and systems analyst. Per Wilson,
    she had to quit her job as a corrections officer in 2013 because her duties were
    limited by her injured ankle, and she was terminated as a probation officer in
    2015 due to her seizures and an altercation with a coworker. Wilson’s
    medical records indicate longstanding neurological, physical, and mental
    health issues, which formed the basis of her application. We briefly discuss
    each relevant condition.
    Seizure disorder. Wilson contends that she has sudden seizures that
    render her unconscious, so she does not drive, among other things. Her claim
    as to the number of seizures is not supported by the medical records that
    show she only has one to three seizures per year, as to which her neurologist
    indicated she would need a day to rest.
    Injured ankle. Wilson severely injured her right ankle in a 1991 car
    accident and underwent reconstructive surgery. She now has arthritis in that
    ankle, and a 2017 X-ray showed severe posttraumatic degradation. Wilson’s
    medical records indicate that her ankle limitations are mild, such that with
    standard breaks, she is able to sit and stand normally in an eight-hour
    workday.
    2
    Case: 21-60663      Document: 00516375131           Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/29/2022
    No. 21-60663
    Affective disorders. Wilson also suffers from anxiety and depression.
    She has expressed concern about the diminishing benefits her medication has
    on her affective disorders.
    Heart attack, ruptured spleen, hernia. Finally, Wilson suffered a heart
    attack in 2015 and a ruptured spleen in 2016. Her cardiac issues improved
    after a stent was installed, and her ruptured spleen and resulting hernia were
    repaired with surgery. Despite her claims about the current effect of her
    spleen rupture and hernia, a consultant examiner concluded that Wilson
    could lift, carry, and handle light objects.
    II.     Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
    Wilson sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision under
    
    42 U.S.C. § 405
    (g). We have jurisdiction over Wilson’s timely appeal under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
    “We review the Commissioner’s denial of social security benefits
    only to ascertain whether (1) the final decision is supported by substantial
    evidence and (2) whether the Commissioner used the proper legal standards
    to evaluate the evidence.” Whitehead v. Colvin, 
    820 F.3d 776
    , 779 (5th Cir.
    2016) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A
    determination that a final decision is not supported by substantial evidence is
    “appropriate only if no credible evidentiary choices or medical findings
    support the decision.” Harris v. Apfel, 
    209 F.3d 413
    , 417 (5th Cir. 2000).
    Importantly, we do not “reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for
    that of the Commissioner.” Audler v. Astrue, 
    501 F.3d 446
    , 447 (5th Cir.
    2007). Moreover, “[p]rocedural perfection in administrative proceedings is
    not required as long as the substantial rights of a party have not been
    affected.” 
    Id. at 448
     (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    3
    Case: 21-60663       Document: 00516375131              Page: 4   Date Filed: 06/29/2022
    No. 21-60663
    III.      Discussion
    In evaluating a disability claim, the Commissioner conducts a five-step
    inquiry to determine whether: (1) the claimant is not presently working;
    (2) the severity of claimant’s impairment limits her ability to do basic work
    activities; (3) the claimant’s impairment meets or equals an impairment
    listed in Appendix 1 of the social security regulations; (4) the impairment
    prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5) the impairment
    prevents the claimant from doing any other substantial gainful activity. See
    
    20 C.F.R. § 404.1520
    (a)(4)(i)–(v).             The claimant bears the burden of
    satisfying the first four steps of the analysis; the Commissioner bears the
    burden of establishing the fifth by demonstrating that other work the claimant
    can perform is available in the national economy. Audler, 
    501 F.3d at 448
    .
    Wilson takes issue with the ALJ’s findings at steps two and four of the
    inquiry. We examine those determinations.
    A.       Severity of Affective Disorders
    Relevant here, the ALJ concluded at step two of the disability analysis
    that Wilson’s diagnoses of bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety were not
    severe under 
    20 C.F.R. § 404.1520
    (c) because they only minimally limit her
    “ability to perform basic mental work activities.”
    In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ considered four broad areas of
    mental     functioning:    (1) understanding,        remembering,   or   applying
    information; (2) interacting with others; (3) concentrating, persisting, or
    maintaining pace; and (4) adapting or managing oneself.                   See 
    id.
    § 404.1520a(c)(3). After a thorough review of Wilson’s medical records, the
    ALJ concluded that Wilson experienced only a mild limitation in each area
    and accordingly that her affective disorders were not severe.             See id.
    § 404.1520a(d)(1).
    4
    Case: 21-60663      Document: 00516375131          Page: 5   Date Filed: 06/29/2022
    No. 21-60663
    Wilson argues that the ALJ impermissibly cherry-picked evidence
    supporting the ALJ’s conclusion and failed to consider evidence establishing
    that Wilson’s affective disorders were severe and worsening. However, our
    review of the record indicates that in totality, the ALJ considered Wilson’s
    intellect, memory, problem-solving skills, self-isolation, stress tolerance,
    mood swings, anger-management issues, ability to get along with others,
    punctuality, demeanor, and medication concerns. We accordingly reject
    Wilson’s contention that the ALJ’s review of the record regarding her
    affective disorders was impermissibly narrow.
    Wilson also argues that the opinion of the non-examining medical
    consultant “mischaracterized” the reports upon which he based his
    conclusion that Wilson’s mental health issues were not severe.            This
    argument is about the phrase “laughed easily,” which Wilson claims
    misinterprets “tried to maintain a sense of humor.” We conclude this
    argument is one of semantics and does not affect the ultimate outcome by the
    ALJ.
    Finally, in this category Wilson further takes issue with the ALJ’s
    statement that Wilson had worked since her mental health diagnoses. The
    ALJ might have been relying on earlier diagnoses rather than those occurring
    after she left work, but even assuming arguendo the ALJ’s statement in this
    regard was error, it was harmless. See Audler, 
    501 F.3d at 448
    . The ALJ was
    clear that Wilson did not perform substantial gainful activity from the alleged
    onset of disability date of August 1, 2015, and the ALJ acknowledged that
    Wilson’s depression and anxiety developed in 2016. So, we need not address
    this argument further.
    In sum, bearing in mind our limited role and inability to reweigh the
    evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ’s, see 
    id. at 447
    , we
    5
    Case: 21-60663        Document: 00516375131              Page: 6      Date Filed: 06/29/2022
    No. 21-60663
    hold that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Wilson’s
    affective disorders were not severe.
    B.      Residual Functional Capacity
    At step four of the disability analysis—whether impairments prevent
    the claimant from doing past relevant work—the Commissioner must first
    determine a claimant’s residual functional capacity, or the ability the
    claimant has to perform past relevant work despite any impairments. See 
    20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520
    (e), 404.1545(a)(1).
    In making the residual functional capacity determination, the ALJ first
    considered all of Wilson’s impairments that could reasonably be expected to
    produce pain or other symptoms. See SSR 16-3, 
    82 Fed. Reg. 49462
    , 49464
    (Oct. 25, 2017). The ALJ then evaluated the “intensity, persistence, and
    limiting effects” of those symptoms to determine the extent to which they
    limited Wilson’s ability to perform work-related activities. See 
    id.
     After a
    thorough review of the record, and considering Wilson’s impairments due to
    her heart attack, ankle injury, and seizures, the ALJ found that Wilson has
    the residual capacity to perform “light work” with certain limitations. 1
    Wilson argues there was not substantial evidence in the record
    supporting the ALJ’s conclusion regarding her ability to perform light work,
    relying on certain medical opinions. 2 The ALJ, however, was not required to
    1
    To determine the physical exertion required for various jobs, the Social Security
    Administration classifies jobs as sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy. 
    20 C.F.R. § 404.1567
    (a)–(e). “Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time
    with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds.” 
    Id.
     § 404.1567(b).
    Furthermore, a job is considered light work when “it requires a good deal of walking or
    standing, or when it involves sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm
    or leg controls.” Id.
    2
    Wilson does not challenge the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determinations
    as to her seizure disorder and heart attack.
    6
    Case: 21-60663      Document: 00516375131           Page: 7   Date Filed: 06/29/2022
    No. 21-60663
    adopt these specific medical opinions, and there is other evidence in the
    record supporting the ALJ’s conclusion.
    Moreover, Wilson’s own allegations regarding her limitations are
    undermined by the record. Wilson testified that she could not lift a gallon of
    milk, but there is no evidence in the record that such a complaint was ever
    made to Wilson’s own medical providers, and the consultant examiner
    concluded that Wilson could lift, carry, and handle light objects. Wilson
    asserted that she could not stand for more than one hour per day due to pain
    in her ankle, but she told her doctor in January 2017 (a year and a half after
    her disability onset date) that she was active and could walk over a mile
    without difficulty. The ALJ also noted Wilson’s statement to a doctor that
    she stopped exercising due to stress, not physical inability.
    As factfinder, the ALJ was free to evaluate and weigh the totality of
    the evidence in the record in reaching the conclusion. Given the evidence
    from the consultant examiner regarding Wilson’s ankle and other relevant
    evidence in the record, we cannot say that “no credible evidentiary choices
    or medical findings support the [ALJ’s] decision.” Boyd v. Apfel, 
    239 F.3d 698
    , 704 (5th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, substantial
    evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Wilson is capable of performing
    light work, and we will not disturb it.
    C.     Past Relevant Work
    Past relevant work is substantial gainful activity that the claimant
    performed within fifteen years prior to the alleged disability onset date. 
    20 C.F.R. § 404.1560
    (b). The claimant must also have performed the work long
    enough to learn how to do the job effectively. 
    Id.
     Predicated on her
    determination that Wilson had the residual functional capacity to perform
    light work, the ALJ concluded that Wilson was capable of performing her past
    relevant work as a child welfare case worker and probation and parole officer
    7
    Case: 21-60663      Document: 00516375131          Page: 8    Date Filed: 06/29/2022
    No. 21-60663
    (both classified as light work), and as a systems analyst (classified as
    sedentary work).
    Wilson argues there is not substantial evidence in the record to
    support the ALJ’s past relevant work determination as to her systems analyst
    role. Wilson only worked as a systems analyst for fourteen months, and that
    job is skilled at specific vocational preparation level seven, which requires at
    least two years of experience to qualify as past relevant work. See 
    20 C.F.R. § 404.1568
    ; SSR 00-4p, 
    65 Fed. Reg. 75759
    , 75760 (Dec. 4, 2000). Assuming
    arguendo the ALJ erred in classifying Wilson’s systems analyst job as past
    relevant work, we hold that error harmless—Wilson is still capable of
    performing the jobs of child welfare case worker and probation and parole
    officer. Accordingly, the ALJ’s step four determination that Wilson can
    perform prior relevant work remains supported by substantial evidence.
    AFFIRMED.
    8
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-60663

Filed Date: 6/29/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/29/2022