Kermit R. v. Kijakazi

Background

Kermit R. applied for disability insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning April 1, 2017, because of back arthritis, disc degeneration, congenital spinal-canal narrowing and stenosis, and past seizures. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that he had the severe impairment of degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine. The ALJ determined that this impairment did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment and that Kermit R. had the residual functional capacity (RFC)—his ability to work despite his impairments—to perform work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The ALJ therefore found that he was not disabled, and the Appeals Council affirmed that determination.

Kermit R. sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. He argued that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Kelsey Schultz, and improperly relied on opinions from state-agency physicians.

Treating-Physician Opinion

Dr. Schultz’s September 2019 medical-source statement recommended severe limitations, including not using his hands, walking only one city block, sitting no more than 20 minutes at a time, standing no more than 10 minutes, changing positions every 30 minutes, and occasionally lifting less than 10 pounds.

The ALJ did not find those recommendations persuasive. The ALJ cited a lack of support in objective medical evidence, including Dr. Schultz’s earlier examination notes and imaging, as well as an absence of impairment corresponding to such extreme limitations. The ALJ also noted that Dr. Schultz had recommended conservative treatment rather than surgery, had not prescribed strong pain medication, and had noted that Kermit R. did not follow pain-management recommendations. In addition, Kermit R. reported activities including walking, helping a friend with household chores, grocery shopping, fishing, hunting, and traveling to Las Vegas. The court concluded that these activities conflicted with Dr. Schultz’s description of extremely limited mobility and that Kermit R.’s challenge to the ALJ’s treatment of her opinion failed.

State-Agency Physicians’ Opinions

Kermit R. argued that the ALJ should not have relied on the state-agency physicians’ 2018 opinions because they preceded later treatment indicating that he might need a cervical fusion. He argued that the ALJ should instead have accepted Dr. Schultz’s 2019 opinion or obtained another medical opinion.

The court rejected that argument. It explained that state-agency review necessarily occurs before the ALJ’s review and that the Social Security regulations impose no stated limit on the time between a consultant’s report and the ALJ’s decision. The court also noted that, although the ALJ found the state-agency opinions persuasive, the ALJ found Kermit R. more limited than those physicians had found him to be. Kermit R. also told the ALJ that he wanted to try more conservative treatment before undergoing a cervical fusion. The court found that he had not shown that the ALJ improperly considered the state-agency opinions.

Ruling

The court reviewed the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether substantial evidence—relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate—supported it. Judge Paul A. Magnuson concluded that substantial evidence supported the decision denying benefits.

The court ordered:

1. Kermit R.’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED. 2. The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED.

The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.