Stowers v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION and JUDGMENT in favor of Darnell Stowers against Kilolo Kijakazi. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders on 8/1/22. (def)

Case: 3:21-cv-00191-DAS Doc #: 23 Filed: 08/01/22 1 of 5 PageID #: 841

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
DARNELL STOWERS

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21CV-191-DAS

KILOLO KIJAKAZI,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
This cause is before the court on the plaintiff’s complaint for judicial review of an
unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding
his application for supplemental security income. The parties have consented to entry of final
judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with
any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court, having reviewed the
administrative record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law and having heard oral
argument, finds the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security should be reversed and the
matter remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
FACTS
The plaintiff, Darnell Stowers, filed for benefits on January 8, 2019, alleging onset of
disability commencing on October 15, 2014. The Social Security Administration denied the
claim initially and on reconsideration. Following a hearing, the ALJ issued an unfavorable
decision on August 28, 2020. (Dkt. 10 p.17-24).1 The Appeals Council denied the request for
review, and this timely appeal followed.
All references are to the administrative record using the court’s numbering system, rather than the
administrative numbering.
1

Case: 3:21-cv-00191-DAS Doc #: 23 Filed: 08/01/22 2 of 5 PageID #: 842

The ALJ determined Stowers had the following severe impairments: sequalae from
chronic high blood pressure (kidney and congestive heart disease). At Step Three the ALJ found
Stowers did not meet the Medical Listings 4.02 for chronic heart failure or 6.05 for nephrotic
syndrome. The ALJ found Stowers could perform less that a full range of sedentary work, but
other jobs were available within his limited RFC and Stowers was therefore not disabled.
Stowers, who is a younger individual, just thirty-six on the application date, suffers from
severe congestive heart failure, with an ejection fraction of only 29%. He suffers from Stage 4,
“rapidly approaching Stage 5,” or end stage kidney failure. The plaintiff argues in his appeal that
he meets the listing for kidney failure, 6.05, or alternatively that between his kidney failure and
congestive heart failure he should have been found disabled because his conditions medically
equal a listing.
ANALYSIS
The plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in his Step Three analysis. After determining at
Steps One and Two whether a claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity and
whether he or she has severe impairments, ALJs are charged at Step Three with determining if a
claimant meets or medically equals the criteria set forth in any of the Listings of Impairments, 20
C.F.R. § Part 404, Subpt. P. App. 1. These listings provide a presumption of disability which if
met deem the applicant disabled without consideration of vocational factors. The plaintiff
suffers from chronic hypertension which has resulted in stage 4 of 5 kidney disease. He also has
very severe chronic heart failure.
The plaintiff makes two arguments. First, Stowers argues the ALJ erred in failing to find
he met Listing 6.05 because of his kidney disease and in failing to discuss the evidence and
explain why he found Stowers did not meet this listing. Alternatively, Stowers urges the court to

2

Case: 3:21-cv-00191-DAS Doc #: 23 Filed: 08/01/22 3 of 5 PageID #: 843

find the ALJ erred in failing to consider or explain how his kidney failure coupled with the heart
failure was not medically equivalent to a listing.
Listing 6.05 has the following criteria which must be met to qualify for presumptive
disability:
605 Chronic kidney disease, with impairment of kidney function, with A and B:
A. Reduced glomerular filtration evidenced by one of the following laboratory findings
documented on at least two occasions at least 90 days apart during a consecutive 12-month
period:
1. Serum creatine of 4 mg/dL or greater; or
2. Creatine clearance of 20 ml/min. or less; or
3. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 20 ml/min/ 1.73ms or less,
AND
B. One of the following:
1. Renal osteodystrophy with severe bone pain ….; or
2. Peripheral neuropathy; or
3. Fluid overload syndrome documented by one of the following:
a. Diastolic hypertension greater than or equal to diastolic blood pressure of 110
mm HG despite at least 90 consecutive days of prescribed therapy, documented
by at least two measurements of diastolic blood pressure at least 90 days apart
during a consecutive 12-month period; or
b. Signs of vascular congestion despite at least 90 consecutive days of prescribed
therapy, documented on a least two occasions at least 90 days apart during a
consecutive 12-month period; or
4. Anorexia with weight loss….
20 C.F. R. Part 404, Subpt. P. App 1 § 6.05.
As Stowers points out, the ALJ devoted two sentences to his Step Three findings. His
decision provides:
The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or
medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. 416.920(d), 416, 925 and 416.926).
I have considered the impairments listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of part 404
of the regulations and find the claimant’s impairments do not singularly or in
combination meet or medically equal the required criteria for any of the listed
impairments. The signs, symptoms and history of treatment presented in the evidence of
record are inconsistent with the degree of pain and or functional limitation that is required
to meet or equal the criteria set forth in the Medical Listing 4.02, chronic heart failure,
6.05 nephrotic syndrome, or any other listing. R. 15.

3

Case: 3:21-cv-00191-DAS Doc #: 23 Filed: 08/01/22 4 of 5 PageID #: 844

The ALJ does not discuss any of the particulars of the listing nor acknowledge the
evidence showing Stowers indisputably meets at least parts of the listing. The dispute on this
appeal is whether Stowers meets the listing as to fluid overload, specifically whether he has
demonstrated diastolic hypertension of 110 or above, despite prescribed therapy for 90 days, as
shown by at least two measurements 90 days apart during a consecutive twelve-month period.
The plaintiff contends that the medical records show that he meets the criteria. The records do in
fact show repeated diastolic readings at listing levels over the required time periods. The
Commissioner counters that this listing is not met, arguing that the plaintiff was non-compliant
with the prescribed therapy.
The court’s decision in this matter is governed by Audler v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 114 (5th Cir.
2007). In that case the ALJ found that the medical evidence showed the claimant was status post
lumbar laminectomy, cervical disc herniation, finding the conditions were severe, but not severe
enough to meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments. The decision did not identify
any of the listings considered. The Fifth Circuit found these bare conclusions were beyond
meaningful review. The court noted the Commissioner has a statutory duty to explain any
decision denying benefits, “in understandable language, setting forth a discussion of the
evidence, and stating Commissioner’s determination and the reason or reasons upon which it is
based.” 42 U.S. C. § 405 (b)(1). Because the ALJ did not discuss the evidence as mandated by
the statute, the ALJ had erred.
The only difference between Stowers and Audler is that the ALJ in this case identified
the appropriate listings. But there is no discussion of the evidence at Step Three or rationale for
the Step Three decision. The Commissioner contends that the identification of the appropriate
listing is sufficient. The court disagrees. The only part of this brief decision that is not boilerplate

4

Case: 3:21-cv-00191-DAS Doc #: 23 Filed: 08/01/22 5 of 5 PageID #: 845

is the identification of the applicable listings. Consequently, the decision in this case does not
allow meaningful appellate review as to whether Stowers meets the 6.05 listing, and it provides
no information as to how or why the ALJ may have considered the impact of a second
impairment in making a medical equivalency determination.
The Commissioner suggests that any error is not prejudicial pointing to evidence in the
record that it argues shows some non-compliance with medications. However, even if the court
were to assume the ALJ’s Step Three decision was based on the alleged non-compliance as to the
kidney problems, this speculation does nothing to explain how the ALJ may have arrived at the
unexplained medical equivalency decision.
After considering the entirety of the record, the court finds this decision cannot be
subjected to any meaningful judicial review, and thus, the case must be remanded.
CONCLUSION
The court finding prejudicial error in the Step Three decision, both as the 6.05 decision
and the medical equivalency decision, reverses the decision of the Commissioner and remands
this action for further administrative proceedings consistent with the opinion.
SO ORDERED this the 1st day of August, 2022.

/s/ David A. Sanders
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5