United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60225

Kathryn Goodwin, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Mississippi 

USDC No. 1:20-cv-38

Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Kathryn Goodwin appeals the final administrative denial of her 

application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social 

Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423(d). In her application, Goodwin alleged 

disability beginning January 15, 2017, as a result of the following physical 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 5, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60225 Document: 00516083346 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2021
No. 21-60225

2

conditions: back surgery, knee replacement surgery, high blood pressure, 

pain, depression, and acid reflux. After Goodwin’s application was denied, 

an administrative hearing was held at her request on January 30, 2019. At 

that hearing, Goodwin was represented by counsel and provided testimony, 

along with her husband and an impartial vocational expert, regarding the 

nature of Goodwin’s physical limitations, her past relevant work, and the 

feasibility of her working in the future. The administrative law judge 

subsequently issued another denial of Goodwin’s application, finding that 

she is not disabled as defined by sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social 

Security Act. The Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration 

declined to review the ALJ’s denial, making it the Commissioner’s final 

administrative decision. Goodwin then requested judicial review. The 

district court affirmed, and Goodwin timely appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 

1291. 

The Commissioner’s final administrative decision to deny disability 

benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is granted great deference and will only be 

reversed if the decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record 

or is based on an error of law. See, e.g., Randall v. Astrue, 570 F.3d 651, 655 

(5th Cir. 2009); Estate of Morris v. Shalala, 207 F.3d 744, 745 (5th Cir. 2000); 

Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 564 (5th Cir. 1995); Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d 

172, 173 (5th Cir. 1995). Under this standard, “[t]he agency’s findings of fact 

are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to 

conclude to the contrary.” Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020) 

(citations and quotations omitted). “Substantial evidence” requires “more 

than a scintilla [of evidence], but it need not be a preponderance.” Leggett,

67 F.3d at 564 (quoting Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 295 (5th Cir. 

1992)). 

The doctrine of harmless error applies to administrative rulings. See 

Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 407–08 (2009). We will not reverse an 

Case: 21-60225 Document: 00516083346 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/05/2021
No. 21-60225

3

administrative judgment unless the substantive rights of a party have been 

affected. See, e.g., Jones v. Astrue, 691 F.3d 730, 734 (5th Cir. 2012); Audler

v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 2007); Castillo v. Barnhart, 325 F.3d

550, 552 (5th Cir. 2003).

The primary question we must address here is whether the ALJ’s 

misunderstanding of a portion of the medical findings by the state agency 

medical consultant constitutes reversible error. For the reasons discussed 

below, we find that it does not. 

In response to Goodwin’s application, the state agency medical 

consultant, Dr. William Hand, reviewed the medical evidence of record to 

determine Goodwin’s residual functional capacity. Based on his review, Dr. 

Hand determined that although Goodwin suffers from various physical 

limitations, she is not disabled as defined by the Social Security Act. For 

instance, among other things, Dr. Hand specifically found that Goodwin is 

capable of occasionally lifting and carrying up to twenty pounds, frequently 

lifting and carrying up to ten pounds, standing and walking for up to two 

hours in an eight-hour workday, sitting for a total of approximately six hours 

in an eight-hour workday, and occasionally climbing stairs, stooping, 

kneeling, and crouching. 

During Goodwin’s administrative hearing on January 30, 2019, 

vocational expert Brenda White was called to testify regarding the nature of 

Goodwin’s past relevant work and whether an individual with Goodwin’s 

physical limitations could continue to perform in that capacity. White based 

her testimony on a review of the record and her professional expertise. 

Goodwin did not object to White’s testimony nor to her classification of 

Goodwin’s past relevant work as a background investigator, as described in 

the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) code 241.267-030, and real estate 

agent, as described in DOT code 250.257-018. White opined that an 

Case: 21-60225 Document: 00516083346 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/05/2021
No. 21-60225

4

individual matching the characterization in Dr. Hand’s assessment is able to 

work as a background investigator. 

The Social Security Administration has established a five-step 

sequential evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is qualified to 

receive Social Security disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). If it is 

determined that a claimant is or is not disabled at any step in the evaluation 

process, the evaluation is over and does not proceed to the next step. The 

five steps require analysis of the following: (1) whether the claimant is 

engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant suffers from 

a “severe” medically determinable impairment or combination of 

impairments; (3) whether that severity rises to a level that medically equals 

the criteria of an impairment listed within Appendix 1 of the regulation; (4) 

whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform her past 

relevant work from within the last 15 years; and (5) whether the claimant is 

capable of performing any other work, considering her residual functional 

capacity, age, education, and work experience. Id. 

Based on the assessment by Dr. Hand and testimony of the vocational 

expert, the ALJ found that Goodwin is capable of performing the full range 

of “light work” as defined by the Social Security Administration. See Social 

Security Ruling (SSR) 83-10, 1983 WL 31251. This would include her past 

work as either a real estate agent or background investigator. Accordingly, 

the ALJ concluded that Goodwin fails to satisfy the disability requirements 

at step 4. 

In reaching this conclusion, theALJ misunderstood one of Dr. Hand’s 

findings. While Dr. Hand determined that Goodwin was capable of standing 

or walking for up to two hours per workday, as consistent with sedentary

exertion, the ALJ mistakenly read his assessment to have found that Goodwin

Case: 21-60225 Document: 00516083346 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/05/2021
No. 21-60225

5

is capable of standing or walking for up to six hours per workday, as consistent 

with light exertion. 

But this error is not reversible. Had the ALJ correctly applied Dr. 

Hand’s assessment to find that Goodwin is capable of standing or walking for 

up to only two hours per workday, this would still qualify her to perform 

“sedentary work.” See SSR 83-10, 1983 WL 31251. As White testified during 

the administrative hearing, Goodwin’s past work as background investigator 

is defined as sedentary work under DOT code 241.267-030. This description 

matches the one provided by Goodwin in her application to the Social 

Security Administration, and she did not object to White’s characterization 

of it as such during her administrative hearing. Consequently, even in the 

absence of the ALJ’s error, Goodwin’s application still would have failed to 

satisfy the disability requirements at step 4 of the evaluation process on the 

basis of Dr. Hand’s findings and White’s testimony. 

Goodwin argues that the ALJ also erred in relying on Dr. Hand’s 

assessment rather than that of her own physician, Dr. Edwards. But Dr. 

Edwards’s assessments also support a finding that she is capable of sedentary 

work. On June 12, 2017, roughly five months after the alleged onset of 

Goodwin’s disability, Dr. Edwards evaluated her and concluded that: 

She can do sedentary work with some limitations on that. . . . 

Once again, she is disabled, but not completely disabled. She 

has severe limitations and restrictions on what she can do. I am 

not convinced that she will be able to pursue employment [at] 

an office type setting; however, if she had the opportunity to 

pursue gainful employment [at] her home environment where 

she can have her restrictions in combinations better managed. 

She will likely do really, really well with that. 

Case: 21-60225 Document: 00516083346 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/05/2021
No. 21-60225

6

This is the only medical assessment from Dr. Edwards after the 

alleged onset of Goodwin’s disability and before the Commissioner’s denial 

of her application. While Dr. Edwards did not make any new clinical findings 

at that appointment, his evaluation similarly supports a finding that Goodwin

can perform sedentary work with certain limitations. This interpretation of 

Dr. Edwards’s valuation is corroborated by White’s testimony at the 

administrative hearing on January 30, 2019. At that hearing, White was asked 

a series of hypotheticals based on the distinct assessments by Dr. Hand and 

Dr. Edwards. White concluded that Goodwin’s past work as a background 

investigator would remain available to an individual who met the physical 

limitations and general characterization provided by either Dr. Hand or Dr. 

Edwards. 

For these reasons, we affirm. 

Case: 21-60225 Document: 00516083346 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/05/2021