Kendrick B. v. Kijakazi

Background

Kendrick B. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. He alleged disability beginning September 28, 2017, based on several conditions, including low vision, skin disease, spinal problems, low back pain, chronic venous insufficiency, diabetes, and urinary problems.

An administrative law judge held a hearing at which Kendrick B. and vocational expert Anne Arrington testified. The administrative law judge later found that Kendrick B. was not disabled. The judge determined that Kendrick B. had severe impairments consisting of lumbar degenerative disc disease, venous insufficiency, and diabetes. The judge found that he could perform a limited range of sedentary work, including work allowing him to change positions after sitting for about an hour and limiting standing and walking to about two hours in an eight-hour workday. Based on vocational testimony, the judge found that he could not return to his past work as a truck driver but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.

The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. Kendrick B. sought reversal and either an award of benefits or a remand to the Social Security Administration. The Commissioner opposed his motion and asked the court to affirm the decision.

Enlarged prostate and frequent urination

Kendrick B. argued that the administrative law judge erred by failing to identify benign prostatic hyperplasia, or BPH, meaning an enlarged prostate, as either a severe or non-severe impairment at the second step of the disability analysis. The record included reports of frequent urination and a urologist’s assessments of BPH with obstruction, an enlarged prostate, and bladder overactivity. The urologist also suspected that diabetes contributed to the urinary symptoms.

The court explained that an impairment is severe when it significantly limits a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. The court assumed, without deciding, that the administrative law judge erred by treating the frequent urination as related to diabetes rather than specifically identifying BPH. It held that any such error was harmless because the administrative law judge considered frequent urination at step two and again when determining Kendrick B.’s residual functional capacity. Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite his limitations.

The court reasoned that the practical issue was how often Kendrick B. needed to urinate, not whether the symptom resulted from BPH, untreated diabetes, or another cause. The administrative law judge had considered his testimony and medical records concerning frequent urination, and Kendrick B. did not challenge the judge’s explanation for finding his symptom testimony not entirely consistent with the record.

Need to elevate his legs

Kendrick B. also argued that the administrative law judge failed to consider his claimed need to elevate his feet while sitting during the workday because of chronic venous insufficiency. The court reviewed the judge’s consideration of the medical evidence, Kendrick B.’s testimony, varying levels of leg swelling, occasional use of compression socks, daily activities, missed or canceled appointments, and failure to follow some treatment recommendations.

The court concluded that the administrative law judge did consider the effects of venous insufficiency. The residual functional capacity included limits on standing and walking, an opportunity to change positions after sitting, and a sit/stand option. The judge did not reject every symptom associated with venous insufficiency; rather, the judge found that the specific claimed need to elevate the legs while sitting at work was inconsistent with the objective medical and other evidence. The court held that the judge gave adequate reasons for not including that restriction.

The court also rejected Kendrick B.’s challenge concerning a treatment-plan notation recommending compression socks and leg elevation while seated. It concluded that the notation was not a medical opinion describing functional abilities or limitations under the applicable regulations. The court further noted that the provider later completed a medical-opinion form without stating that Kendrick B. needed to wear compression socks daily or elevate his legs while seated, and Kendrick B. did not challenge the administrative law judge’s finding that the provider’s opinion was unpersuasive.

Disposition

Judge John F. Docherty denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.