K.B. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

K.B. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. She alleged disability beginning January 16, 2018, based on several conditions, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. The administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing and issued an unfavorable decision on December 19, 2023. The Appeals Council denied review.

The ALJ found that K.B. had severe impairments consisting of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and polysubstance abuse. The ALJ classified hypertension, hypothyroidism, migraines, chronic kidney disease, an unruptured aneurysm, asthma, and COPD as non-severe impairments. The ALJ determined that K.B. could perform work at all exertional levels, subject to non-exertional limits involving simple, routine, repetitive tasks; concentration, persistence, and pace for two-hour periods with normal breaks; routine supervision; and non-collaborative interaction with coworkers. The ALJ concluded that K.B. could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.

Issues

K.B. challenged the ALJ’s finding that her COPD and asthma were non-severe impairments. She also argued that the ALJ failed to include exertional limitations related to those conditions in the residual functional capacity (RFC), which is the most a claimant can still do despite her impairments.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that an impairment is severe if it significantly limits a claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. At this stage, the claimant bears the burden of showing a medically severe impairment. The court reviews the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence—relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate—and whether the decision applied the correct legal standards.

The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that K.B.’s COPD and asthma were non-severe. The ALJ recognized objective evidence of both conditions but found that they caused no more than mild functional limitations. The ALJ relied on treatment records describing the conditions as medically managed, the absence of recommended or anticipated aggressive treatment, and opinions from agency consultants Dr. Joseph Presto and Dr. Kyung Lee that COPD was non-severe. The ALJ also considered the opinion of Dr. Robert Tang, the treatment information from family nurse practitioner Brittany Price, a third-party report from case manager Elizabeth Osterwald, and K.B.’s own statements.

The court rejected K.B.’s argument that the history of COPD and asthma diagnoses established that the conditions were severe. It stated that the length of time a claimant has had a diagnosis does not by itself show the condition’s severity. The court also noted that K.B. did not challenge the ALJ’s evaluation of the opinions, third-party report, or her own symptom statements.

The court further held that the ALJ did not have to translate every non-severe impairment into a specific RFC restriction. The ALJ was required to consider all medically determinable impairments, including non-severe ones, but the record showed that the ALJ considered K.B.’s COPD, asthma, related symptoms, and alleged limitations when determining the RFC. The court therefore found no error in the RFC analysis.

Disposition

The court affirmed the ALJ’s decision. It directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the file.