Shamso M. K. v. Saul

Background

Shamso M. K. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. She alleged disability beginning December 31, 2010, based on kidney failure, rheumatoid arthritis, acid reflux, a 2012 stroke, and high blood pressure. Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After an administrative law judge held a hearing and issued an unfavorable decision, the Appeals Council denied review.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record. Shamso M. K. was last insured for disability insurance benefits on June 30, 2011. Therefore, she had to establish disability on or before that date. The administrative law judge found severe impairments including rheumatoid arthritis, chronic kidney disease with microscopic hematuria, a history of nephrotic syndrome, and anemia related to kidney disease. The administrative law judge found that these impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment and that Shamso M. K. could perform sedentary work with additional physical and environmental restrictions.

Arguments about developing the record

Shamso M. K. argued that the administrative law judge should have obtained review by a medical expert or sent the updated medical records back to state-agency medical consultants. She contended that the additional kidney-treatment records, totaling approximately 800 pages, could affect whether her kidney disease or anemia met or equaled a listed impairment and whether the residual functional capacity assessment was correct. Residual functional capacity means the most a person can still do despite her limitations.

Regarding kidney disease, the court focused on Listing 6.03, which concerns chronic kidney disease requiring ongoing dialysis. Shamso M. K. began dialysis in late November 2011, after her last-insured date. She argued that the later dialysis treatment could support an inference that she was disabled before June 30, 2011 and that a medical expert was needed to determine the onset date.

The court disagreed. It found that the record available to the state-agency medical consultants already documented dialysis beginning in November 2011. Shamso M. K. did not identify evidence in the additional records that created uncertainty about whether her kidney disease met or equaled Listing 6.03 on or before June 30, 2011. The court therefore concluded that the administrative law judge did not fail to develop necessary evidence and was not required to obtain further expert review.

Regarding anemia, Shamso M. K. argued that complications included a rheumatoid-arthritis flare requiring hospitalization in May 2011, physical therapy beginning in July 2011, and difficulty scheduling a kidney biopsy because of multiple illnesses. The court explained that Listing 7.18 also required a marked limitation in activities of daily living, social functioning, or completing tasks because of concentration, persistence, or pace. The court noted that Shamso M. K. had not specifically challenged the administrative law judge’s conclusion that she lacked the required marked limitation during the relevant period. Because she had not shown that her anemia met or equaled the listing by her last-insured date, the court rejected the argument that the record needed further development.

Residual functional capacity

Shamso M. K. also argued that the administrative law judge unreasonably relied on opinions from state-agency medical consultants who had not reviewed all of the additional kidney-treatment records. The court found that the administrative law judge did not rely only on those opinions. The administrative law judge independently reviewed the medical evidence, including the additional records, and considered Shamso M. K.’s statements about her functioning.

The court further found that much of the evidence Shamso M. K. cited—including evidence of joint pain, stiffness, physical therapy, vomiting, abdominal pain, weakness, and weight loss—had already been available to the state-agency consultants. Shamso M. K. also did not specifically identify additional functional limitations that should have been included in the residual functional capacity assessment. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that she could perform a limited range of sedentary work through her last-insured date.

Disposition

The court denied Shamso M. K.’s motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. The order stated that judgment should be entered accordingly.