Jenkins v. Saul

Background

Roy Jenkins sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Jenkins alleged that he had been disabled since January 1, 2009, because of Graves’ disease, a thyroid condition, and depression. He applied for benefits on June 24, 2019.

Jenkins appeared without a lawyer at his hearings before Administrative Law Judge Robert Gonzalez in April and August 2020. The administrative law judge denied the claim on September 9, 2020, and the Appeals Council declined review on March 12, 2021, making the administrative law judge’s decision final. Jenkins later filed this federal case through counsel.

Administrative Law Judge’s Decision

The administrative law judge found that Jenkins was last insured for benefits on September 30, 2010. At the second step of the required five-step disability evaluation, the administrative law judge identified two medically determinable impairments during the relevant period: a condition following colon cancer and foot callouses. The administrative law judge found that neither impairment, alone or together, significantly limited Jenkins’s ability to perform basic work activities. Because no severe impairment was found, the analysis ended at step two.

The administrative law judge concluded that Jenkins’s colon cancer had essentially resolved several years before the alleged disability began. The administrative law judge also found that treatment for Jenkins’s foot callouses was sporadic and conservative, without substantial evidence of ongoing symptoms.

Jenkins’s Arguments

Jenkins argued that the administrative law judge failed to fully develop the medical record, particularly by not obtaining additional records. He also argued that the administrative law judge should have found a severe foot impairment and should have considered the effects of his foot problems when assessing his ability to work.

The Commissioner argued that the record was adequately developed and that Jenkins had not shown a severe impairment during the period from January 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that an administrative law judge has an affirmative duty to develop a complete medical record, with a heightened duty when a claimant is unrepresented. But the court also stated that the administrative law judge need not seek more information when there are no obvious gaps and the existing record provides a complete medical history for the relevant period.

The court found that the record included medical records from St. Joseph’s Family Health Center covering the period through October 2009 and records from WESTMED Medical Group beginning in 2016. The record also showed that adjudicators asked Jenkins about additional medical sources. Jenkins identified an unnamed doctor, but his testimony indicated that this doctor treated him much later, around the time he switched to WESTMED. Jenkins did not claim that records from that doctor concerned the relevant period or would show that he was unable to work then.

The court also noted that the record indicated Jenkins was not diagnosed with Graves’ disease until at least 2015 and did not receive treatment for depression until October 2019. The court found no indication of what additional evidence was missing or how it would relate to the relevant period. It therefore concluded that the administrative law judge fulfilled the duty to develop the record.

The court rejected Jenkins’s challenge to the step-two finding. The foot records on which Jenkins appeared to rely were from July 2019, nearly nine years after the date last insured, and described relatively mild symptoms treated with stretches, custom orthotics, and ibuprofen. The records from the relevant period supported the finding that Jenkins’s foot callouses had no more than a minimal effect on his ability to work.

The court also rejected Jenkins’s reliance on Social Security Ruling 96-8p. That ruling concerns the assessment of a claimant’s remaining ability to work after the administrative law judge finds a severe impairment. Because the administrative law judge found no severe impairment and ended the analysis at step two, the court concluded that no assessment of that remaining ability was required.

Disposition

The court held that the administrative law judge’s finding that Jenkins did not have a severe impairment during the relevant period was free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence. Jenkins’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. The Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted. The action was dismissed with prejudice.