Shukri I. I. v. Kijakazi

Background

Shukri I. I. sought judicial review of the denial of her application for supplemental security income. She alleged disability beginning August 28, 2018, based on multiple impairments, including obesity, spinal degenerative disc disease, shoulder conditions, osteoarthritis, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and somatic symptom disorder.

After an administrative hearing, an administrative law judge found that Shukri had several severe impairments. The administrative law judge determined that she could not perform her past relevant work but could work as a hand packager or inserter. The administrative law judge therefore found her not disabled under the applicable regulations. The Social Security Administration Appeals Council denied review.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule based on the record when there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial. A magistrate judge recommended denying Shukri’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion because substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s decision. Shukri objected to that recommendation.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed Shukri’s objections independently and reviewed the administrative law judge’s decision under the substantial-evidence standard. Under that standard, the question was whether the record contained enough evidence that a reasonable person could support the administrative law judge’s conclusion. The court considered evidence both supporting and weighing against the Commissioner’s decision but could not replace the administrative law judge’s judgment when the record supported the result.

Shukri first challenged the treatment of lifting restrictions in a November 2019 report by Dr. Totoe. She argued that the magistrate judge improperly relied on an August 2020 cortisone injection for her right shoulder. The court noted that the injection helped for about ten days and that her pain returned, leading to surgery. But because Dr. Totoe’s report was completed almost a year before the injection and surgery, the court concluded that the magistrate judge did not err in determining that the administrative law judge properly discounted the opinion in this respect. The court also noted that postoperative records described the surgery as successful.

Shukri next argued that Dr. Totoe’s clinical findings had been improperly discounted. The court agreed with the administrative law judge and magistrate judge that the opinion relied on Shukri’s subjective complaints rather than objective findings. The imaging associated with the report showed no fracture or malalignment, no intrinsic bone abnormalities, preserved joint spaces, and unremarkable soft tissues. The court concluded that other evidence in the record independently supported the administrative law judge’s conclusion.

Finally, Shukri argued that the magistrate judge improperly discounted March and June 2020 magnetic-resonance imaging results. The court stated that the report and recommendation accurately described both the abnormal findings and the mostly normal findings in those scans. Because the scans and Dr. Totoe’s report came before the shoulder surgery, which addressed the main source of Shukri’s physical pain and limitations, the court concluded that substantial evidence also supported the finding that she was not disabled before surgery.

Disposition

The court overruled Shukri’s objection, adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety, denied Shukri’s motion for summary judgment, and granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. Judgment was ordered accordingly.