Shawn C. H. v. Kijakazi

Background

Shawn C. H. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income disability benefits. He alleged that he became disabled beginning April 24, 2018.

An administrative law judge held a hearing on June 9, 2021, and issued an unfavorable decision on June 30, 2021. The administrative law judge found severe impairments including left shoulder degenerative joint disease, cervical degenerative disc disease, hearing loss, tinnitus, left-leg injuries and scarring, costochondral neuralgia, hypertension, a concussion or traumatic brain injury, and adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. The administrative law judge determined that Shawn C. H. could perform sedentary work with additional physical, environmental, and mental restrictions. Although he could not perform his past relevant work, the administrative law judge found that he could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, including table worker, bench hand, and final assembler.

After the administrative law judge’s decision, Shawn C. H. submitted a September 7, 2021 report from Dr. Steven D. Lockman and a transcript of Dr. Lockman’s November 2, 2021 deposition. The Appeals Council denied further review and stated that the additional evidence did not relate to the period at issue because the administrative law judge had decided the case through June 30, 2021.

Arguments

Shawn C. H. argued that the Appeals Council committed a legal error by refusing to consider Dr. Lockman’s report and testimony. He maintained that the evidence concerned the same injuries and disability period involved in his applications, and that Dr. Lockman’s opinions could reasonably have changed the outcome.

The Commissioner argued that the Appeals Council’s refusal to review the decision was not reviewable by the court. The Commissioner also argued that Shawn C. H. had not shown good cause for submitting the evidence later and that the evidence was not material or likely to change the administrative law judge’s decision.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed whether the administrative decision was supported by substantial evidence and whether it resulted from legal error. The court focused on whether the Appeals Council properly applied regulations governing new evidence submitted after an administrative law judge’s decision.

The court held that Dr. Lockman’s report and testimony related to the relevant period despite being prepared after the administrative law judge’s decision. Dr. Lockman reviewed medical information beginning in 2018, discussed symptoms reported during 2018 through 2020, and attributed ongoing symptoms—including cognitive problems, memory issues, dizziness, tinnitus, mood symptoms, and left-leg pain—to the 2018 blast injury. The court noted that nothing in the report suggested that the impairments arose only after June 30, 2021.

The court also concluded that the evidence was new and not cumulative. Because it related to Shawn C. H.’s condition during the adjudicated period and addressed his impairments, the court found it material. The Appeals Council therefore committed legal error by refusing to consider the evidence solely because of the dates on the report and deposition.

The court did not decide whether the evidence would ultimately change the disability determination. It also did not decide the good-cause issue because the Appeals Council had not addressed that issue in the first instance. Instead, the court concluded that the appropriate remedy was to return the matter to the Commissioner for consideration of the evidence under the applicable regulations.

Disposition

The court granted in part Shawn C. H.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, denied the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and remanded the matter under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissioner must resubmit Dr. Lockman’s report and testimony to the Appeals Council for appropriate consideration under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.970 and 416.1470. The scheduled announcement of decision was cancelled.