Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Donald Kenneth McLeod sought Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2017. An administrative law judge found that McLeod had severe impairments from hepatitis C and moderate major depressive disorder, but that his COPD, cataracts, obesity, and substance-use disorder in remission were non-severe.
The ALJ determined that McLeod could perform medium work with restrictions against climbing ladders and working in hazardous environments, as well as limitations to simple, routine tasks and no more than occasional interaction with others. Although McLeod could not return to his past work as a blueprint trimmer, the ALJ relied on vocational-expert testimony that he could work as a hand packager or laundry laborer, occupations with significant numbers of jobs nationally. After the Appeals Council denied review, McLeod sought judicial review but did not respond to the Commissioner’s summary-judgment motion.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, affirmed the denial of benefits, and dismissed McLeod’s complaint with prejudice. It held that the ALJ used the required five-step evaluation process and correctly applied the Fifth Circuit’s severity standard in finding that McLeod’s COPD caused no more than a minimal effect on his ability to perform basic work activities during the relevant period.
The court also held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s residual-functional-capacity assessment and step-five finding. The record included largely unremarkable physical examinations, successful hepatitis C treatment, minimal treatment for McLeod’s other asserted conditions, psychological findings supporting restrictions to simple work and limited social interaction, and vocational testimony identifying 90,000 hand-packager and laundry-laborer jobs nationally.
McLeod’s assertion that his COPD later worsened into emphysema requiring oxygen did not undermine the decision because judicial review concerned whether the evidence before the ALJ supported the April 28, 2021 ruling. Contemporaneous records documented repeated denials of shortness of breath, generally normal oxygen saturation, clear lungs, and improvement with inhalers.
Key Takeaways
- A claimant’s failure to oppose summary judgment does not automatically entitle the Commissioner to judgment, but it leaves the Commissioner’s factual assertions undisputed.
- An ALJ satisfies the Fifth Circuit’s severity standard by determining that an impairment is only a slight abnormality with no more than a minimal effect on basic work activities and by applying Stone or equivalent authority.
- Later deterioration in a claimant’s condition does not establish error in an earlier disability decision when substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s findings during the period under review.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the limited scope of judicial review in Social Security cases: a district court does not reweigh evidence or decide disability anew, but asks whether the ALJ applied the correct law and relied on more than a scintilla of supporting evidence.
It also underscores the importance of identifying specific legal or evidentiary errors in briefing. General dissatisfaction with the benefits process, without record-based arguments challenging the ALJ’s analysis, is insufficient to obtain reversal or remand.