Jo V. v. Kijakazi
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:22-cv-03136
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Connie Jo V. v. Kijakazi, Judge Magnuson denied the claimant’s motion, granted the Commissioner’s motion, and dismissed the Social Security case with prejudice.
Connie Jo V.’s claim for Supplemental Security Income was finally dismissed, and the Commissioner’s denial of benefits was left in place.
What happened
In Connie Jo V. v. Kijakazi, Connie Jo V. applied for Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability from mental-health conditions and several physical impairments. An Administrative Law Judge found that she was not disabled. After the Appeals Council declined to change that result, she asked the court to send the case back for consideration of additional medical evidence.
Connie Jo V. argued that the Administrative Law Judge should review a medical form completed by a clinic social worker. The court explained that additional evidence must be new, important to the case, related to the period considered by the Administrative Law Judge, and reasonably likely to change the result. The court assumed, without deciding, that Connie Jo V. had good cause for not submitting the evidence earlier, but found that the form did not relate to the relevant period and would not likely have changed the decision.
Judge Magnuson denied Connie Jo V.’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s motion, and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court entered judgment accordingly.
The detailed version
- Jo V. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:22-cv-03136
- Paul Magnuson
- June 9, 2023
Background
Connie Jo V. applied for Supplemental Security Income on March 13, 2020. She initially alleged that she became disabled on January 1, 2017, but later amended the alleged onset date to April 1, 2020. She identified mental-health conditions, including anxiety and depression, as well as type 2 diabetes, fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease, peripheral neuropathy, diverticulitis, headaches, sleep apnea, and obesity.
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that Connie Jo V. was not disabled. She sought review from the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council. She had been unrepresented before the ALJ but obtained counsel for the Appeals Council review. Her counsel submitted additional medical records, including a September 27, 2022, mental-work-capacity form completed by Megan Phillips, a clinic social worker who stated that she regularly treated Connie Jo V.
The Appeals Council determined that the new records did not relate to the disability period at issue and would not have affected the ALJ’s decision. Connie Jo V. then brought this case, arguing that the matter should be sent back so the ALJ could determine the relevance of the new evidence in the first instance.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the Commissioner’s decision to determine whether it was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and complied with applicable legal standards. It noted that review of an ALJ’s evidentiary decisions is narrow.
Under the applicable regulation, the Appeals Council reviews additional evidence when it is new, material, related to the period on or before the ALJ’s decision, and reasonably likely to change the outcome. The claimant must also show good cause for failing to submit the evidence to the ALJ.
The court assumed, for purposes of its decision, that Connie Jo V. satisfied the good-cause requirement. It nevertheless concluded that she had not shown that the additional evidence would have changed the outcome. The form stated that Connie Jo V. had no or mild limitations in 14 of 16 areas and moderate limitations in two areas: maintaining attention and concentration for more than brief periods and performing at the production levels expected by most employers. The form also stated that her condition might deteriorate under the stress of a full-time job.
The court agreed with the Appeals Council that the form did not relate to the relevant period, which ran from April 2020 through October 2021. The court gave no weight to the social worker’s statement that the limitations had existed since April 2020 because the statement was qualified by the phrase “as far as I have been informed” and lacked specific references to medical records supporting that conclusion. The court further concluded that a single form completed nearly a year after the relevant period, without reference to treatment notes, would not have caused the ALJ to reconsider the finding that Connie Jo V. was not disabled.
Disposition
The court ordered that:
- Connie Jo V.’s Motion for Summary Judgment was DENIED. - The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment was GRANTED. - The matter was DISMISSED with prejudice.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.