Pamela Cauthen v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner ( 2020 )

Case: 20-60390 Document: 00515579947 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/25/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 25, 2020
No. 20-60390
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Pamela K. Cauthen,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:19-CV-14
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Pamela Cauthen appeals the denial of her application for disability-
based Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), contending that substantial
evidence demonstrates severe impairment during the required period. 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60390 Document: 00515579947 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/25/2020
No. 20-60390
I. DISCUSSION
This court’s review “is limited to determining whether the decision
is supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the proper
legal standards were used in evaluating the evidence.” Graves v. Colvin,
837 F.3d 589, 591–92 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation omitted).
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla, less than a preponderance,
and is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.” Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 461 (5th Cir. 2005)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In applying this standard,
this court “may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the
Commissioner's.” Id.
Cauthen contends the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in
finding that she did not have a severe impairment at step two of the
sequential, five-step analysis used to evaluate disability-based SSI claims. 1
First, Cauthen argues that proper evaluation of pre-application evidence
would have resulted in a finding of severe impairment. Second, she contends
that functional loss related to her arthritis should satisfy a finding of severe
disability. Both arguments fail.
A severe impairment is more than a slight abnormality that would not
be expected to interfere with a claimant’s ability to work. Salmond v.
Berryhill, 892 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Stone v. Heckler,
1
The five steps are: (1) whether the claimant is currently working; (2) whether the
claimed impairment can be classified as severe; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals
an impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) whether the claimant can
perform her past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant can perform other substantial
gainful activities. See Perez, 415 F.3d at 461. The claimant bears the burden of proof on the
first four steps, but on the fifth step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner. Id. If the
Commissioner can determine whether the claimant is disabled at any step, the analysis
ends. Id.
2
Case: 20-60390 Document: 00515579947 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/25/2020
No. 20-60390
752 F.2d 1099, 1101 (5th Cir. 1985) (stating that “[a]n impairment can be
considered as not severe only if it is a slight abnormality having such minimal
effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the
individual’s ability to work, irrespective of age, education or work
experience”). The ALJ applied this standard when denying Cauthen’s claim
at step two. See Garcia v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 700, 705 (5th Cir. 2018)
(concluding that the ALJ did not apply too high a threshold in its
determination of severity because the ALJ cited Stone and rigorously applied
an appropriate analysis).
A. Pre-Application Evidence
Cauthen contends that the ALJ did not properly evaluate evidence
pre-dating her application. She argues that if all evidence of impairment had
been fully considered, a finding of severe impairment would have been
reached. 2
As Cauthen recognizes, however, the ALJ did develop and review the
entire medical record – including evidence pre-dating Cauthen’s application.
This court will not restate the ALJ’s assessment of the medical record here.
Suffice it to say, the ALJ considered a wide variety of evidence, noting that
some of Cauthen’s statements were “not supported by exam observations,”
and based the decision on “the record as a whole.” Because this court
concludes the ALJ decision considered pre-application evidence, and that
substantial evidence supports the decision, it is unnecessary to determine
whether the district court was correct in finding pre-application evidence
irrelevant in this case because it was unrelated to the question of disability
2
Among the physical problems identified by Cauthen are shoulder and neck pain,
back pain, diabetes, high blood pressure, peripheral neuropathy, gastroesophageal reflux,
arthritis, plus depression.
3
Case: 20-60390 Document: 00515579947 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/25/2020
No. 20-60390
during the relevant period. Even if we reached that issue, a reasonable mind
could find the pre-application evidence here irrelevant to determining
disability during the relevant time and would find error (if any) to be
harmless.
To establish eligibility for disability-based SSI benefits, Cauthen must
show that she meets the statutory definition of disability while her SSI
application was pending. In this case, the relevant period was January 25,
2017 (application date) and April 2, 2018 (ALJ decision date). Thus,
disability evidence completely unrelated to the relevant period is irrelevant
to adjudication of the claim. Nevertheless, the district court correctly
recognized that pre-application medical records may be relevant to the
existence of a disability during the relevant period, though this court will not
opine on whether such instances are “rare.” Compare with Goudy v.
Commissioner of Social Security, No. 4:18-cv-64-RP, 2020 WL 61042, at *2-3
(N. D. Miss. 2020) (distinguishing the district court opinion in this case and
concluding that the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record by failing
to obtain a pre-application x-ray).
Cauthen argues that pre-application evidence of degenerative
conditions should be considered relevant to show disability during the
relevant period. This argument has some merit, especially because some of
the pre- and post-application medical records appear to relate to similar
conditions. The fact that a condition “standing alone, does not establish the
presence of any particular work-related limitations,” does not mean the pre-
application medical records and diagnoses are completely irrelevant to
determining the existence and severity of a disability during the relevant
period. Given, however, that the medical records during the applicable
period were either normal or unrelated to Cauthen’s determinable
impairments, the district court was arguably correct to consider the prior
medical records irrelevant. But even if they should have been deemed
4
Case: 20-60390 Document: 00515579947 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/25/2020
No. 20-60390
relevant, any error was harmless because evidence within the relevant period
could be reasonably afforded greater weight than evidence prior to the
application period. See Graves, 837 F.3d at 592–93 (“Yet this Court will not
reverse the decision of an ALJ for failure to fully and fairly develop the record
unless the claimant shows that he or she was prejudiced by the ALJ’s
failure.” (quotation and alterations omitted) (citing cases)). In any event, the
ALJ developed the whole record, including pre-application medical records,
and determined that Cauthen’s conditions were not severe.
B. Functional Loss Related to Arthritis
Cauthen argues that functional loss related to arthritis should satisfy a
finding of severe disability. This argument amounts to a disagreement with
the factual findings of the ALJ decision regarding the severity of the
impairment. Nevertheless, this court finds the ALJ decision was supported
by substantial evidence based on the record as a whole.
II. CONCLUSION
Upon review of the briefs, all relevant adjudicative decisions, and
pertinent portions of the record, this court finds no reversible error of law or
fact. AFFIRMED.
5