Goodwin v. Kijakazi ( 2021 )

Case: 21-60225 Document: 00516083346 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 5, 2021
No. 21-60225
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Kathryn Goodwin,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:20-cv-38
Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Kathryn Goodwin appeals the final administrative denial of her
application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423(d). In her application, Goodwin alleged
disability beginning January 15, 2017, as a result of the following physical
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60225 Document: 00516083346 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/05/2021
No. 21-60225
conditions: back surgery, knee replacement surgery, high blood pressure,
pain, depression, and acid reflux. After Goodwin’s application was denied,
an administrative hearing was held at her request on January 30, 2019. At
that hearing, Goodwin was represented by counsel and provided testimony,
along with her husband and an impartial vocational expert, regarding the
nature of Goodwin’s physical limitations, her past relevant work, and the
feasibility of her working in the future. The administrative law judge
subsequently issued another denial of Goodwin’s application, finding that
she is not disabled as defined by sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social
Security Act. The Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration
declined to review the ALJ’s denial, making it the Commissioner’s final
administrative decision. Goodwin then requested judicial review. The
district court affirmed, and Goodwin timely appealed under 28 U.S.C. §
1291.
The Commissioner’s final administrative decision to deny disability
benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is granted great deference and will only be
reversed if the decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record
or is based on an error of law. See, e.g., Randall v. Astrue, 570 F.3d 651, 655
(5th Cir. 2009); Estate of Morris v. Shalala, 207 F.3d 744, 745 (5th Cir. 2000);
Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 564 (5th Cir. 1995); Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d
172, 173 (5th Cir. 1995). Under this standard, “[t]he agency’s findings of fact
are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary.” Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020)
(citations and quotations omitted). “Substantial evidence” requires “more
than a scintilla [of evidence], but it need not be a preponderance.” Leggett,
67 F.3d at 564 (quoting Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 295 (5th Cir.
1992)).
The doctrine of harmless error applies to administrative rulings. See
Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 407–08 (2009). We will not reverse an
2
Case: 21-60225 Document: 00516083346 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/05/2021
No. 21-60225
administrative judgment unless the substantive rights of a party have been
affected. See, e.g., Jones v. Astrue, 691 F.3d 730, 734 (5th Cir. 2012); Audler
v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 2007); Castillo v. Barnhart, 325 F.3d
550, 552 (5th Cir. 2003).
The primary question we must address here is whether the ALJ’s
misunderstanding of a portion of the medical findings by the state agency
medical consultant constitutes reversible error. For the reasons discussed
below, we find that it does not.
In response to Goodwin’s application, the state agency medical
consultant, Dr. William Hand, reviewed the medical evidence of record to
determine Goodwin’s residual functional capacity. Based on his review, Dr.
Hand determined that although Goodwin suffers from various physical
limitations, she is not disabled as defined by the Social Security Act. For
instance, among other things, Dr. Hand specifically found that Goodwin is
capable of occasionally lifting and carrying up to twenty pounds, frequently
lifting and carrying up to ten pounds, standing and walking for up to two
hours in an eight-hour workday, sitting for a total of approximately six hours
in an eight-hour workday, and occasionally climbing stairs, stooping,
kneeling, and crouching.
During Goodwin’s administrative hearing on January 30, 2019,
vocational expert Brenda White was called to testify regarding the nature of
Goodwin’s past relevant work and whether an individual with Goodwin’s
physical limitations could continue to perform in that capacity. White based
her testimony on a review of the record and her professional expertise.
Goodwin did not object to White’s testimony nor to her classification of
Goodwin’s past relevant work as a background investigator, as described in
the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) code 241.267-030, and real estate
agent, as described in DOT code 250.257-018. White opined that an
3
Case: 21-60225 Document: 00516083346 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/05/2021
No. 21-60225
individual matching the characterization in Dr. Hand’s assessment is able to
work as a background investigator.
The Social Security Administration has established a five-step
sequential evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is qualified to
receive Social Security disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). If it is
determined that a claimant is or is not disabled at any step in the evaluation
process, the evaluation is over and does not proceed to the next step. The
five steps require analysis of the following: (1) whether the claimant is
engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant suffers from
a “severe” medically determinable impairment or combination of
impairments; (3) whether that severity rises to a level that medically equals
the criteria of an impairment listed within Appendix 1 of the regulation; (4)
whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform her past
relevant work from within the last 15 years; and (5) whether the claimant is
capable of performing any other work, considering her residual functional
capacity, age, education, and work experience. Id.Based on the assessment by Dr. Hand and testimony of the vocational
expert, the ALJ found that Goodwin is capable of performing the full range
of “light work” as defined by the Social Security Administration. See Social
Security Ruling (SSR) 83-10, 1983 WL 31251. This would include her past
work as either a real estate agent or background investigator. Accordingly,
the ALJ concluded that Goodwin fails to satisfy the disability requirements
at step 4.
In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ misunderstood one of Dr. Hand’s
findings. While Dr. Hand determined that Goodwin was capable of standing
or walking for up to two hours per workday, as consistent with sedentary
exertion, the ALJ mistakenly read his assessment to have found that Goodwin
4
Case: 21-60225 Document: 00516083346 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/05/2021
No. 21-60225
is capable of standing or walking for up to six hours per workday, as consistent
with light exertion.
But this error is not reversible. Had the ALJ correctly applied Dr.
Hand’s assessment to find that Goodwin is capable of standing or walking for
up to only two hours per workday, this would still qualify her to perform
“sedentary work.” See SSR 83-10, 1983 WL 31251. As White testified during
the administrative hearing, Goodwin’s past work as background investigator
is defined as sedentary work under DOT code 241.267-030. This description
matches the one provided by Goodwin in her application to the Social
Security Administration, and she did not object to White’s characterization
of it as such during her administrative hearing. Consequently, even in the
absence of the ALJ’s error, Goodwin’s application still would have failed to
satisfy the disability requirements at step 4 of the evaluation process on the
basis of Dr. Hand’s findings and White’s testimony.
Goodwin argues that the ALJ also erred in relying on Dr. Hand’s
assessment rather than that of her own physician, Dr. Edwards. But Dr.
Edwards’s assessments also support a finding that she is capable of sedentary
work. On June 12, 2017, roughly five months after the alleged onset of
Goodwin’s disability, Dr. Edwards evaluated her and concluded that:
She can do sedentary work with some limitations on that. . . .
Once again, she is disabled, but not completely disabled. She
has severe limitations and restrictions on what she can do. I am
not convinced that she will be able to pursue employment [at]
an office type setting; however, if she had the opportunity to
pursue gainful employment [at] her home environment where
she can have her restrictions in combinations better managed.
She will likely do really, really well with that.
5
Case: 21-60225 Document: 00516083346 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/05/2021
No. 21-60225
This is the only medical assessment from Dr. Edwards after the
alleged onset of Goodwin’s disability and before the Commissioner’s denial
of her application. While Dr. Edwards did not make any new clinical findings
at that appointment, his evaluation similarly supports a finding that Goodwin
can perform sedentary work with certain limitations. This interpretation of
Dr. Edwards’s valuation is corroborated by White’s testimony at the
administrative hearing on January 30, 2019. At that hearing, White was asked
a series of hypotheticals based on the distinct assessments by Dr. Hand and
Dr. Edwards. White concluded that Goodwin’s past work as a background
investigator would remain available to an individual who met the physical
limitations and general characterization provided by either Dr. Hand or Dr.
Edwards.
For these reasons, we affirm.
6