Opinion ID: 4570026
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pre-Application Evidence

Text: Cauthen contends that the ALJ did not properly evaluate evidence pre-dating her application. She argues that if all evidence of impairment had been fully considered, a finding of severe impairment would have been reached. 2 As Cauthen recognizes, however, the ALJ did develop and review the entire medical record – including evidence pre-dating Cauthen’s application. This court will not restate the ALJ’s assessment of the medical record here. Suffice it to say, the ALJ considered a wide variety of evidence, noting that some of Cauthen’s statements were “not supported by exam observations,” and based the decision on “the record as a whole.” Because this court concludes the ALJ decision considered pre-application evidence, and that substantial evidence supports the decision, it is unnecessary to determine whether the district court was correct in finding pre-application evidence irrelevant in this case because it was unrelated to the question of disability 2 Among the physical problems identified by Cauthen are shoulder and neck pain, back pain, diabetes, high blood pressure, peripheral neuropathy, gastroesophageal reflux, arthritis, plus depression. 3 Case: 20-60390 Document: 00515579947 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/25/2020 No. 20-60390 during the relevant period. Even if we reached that issue, a reasonable mind could find the pre-application evidence here irrelevant to determining disability during the relevant time and would find error (if any) to be harmless. To establish eligibility for disability-based SSI benefits, Cauthen must show that she meets the statutory definition of disability while her SSI application was pending. In this case, the relevant period was January 25, 2017 (application date) and April 2, 2018 (ALJ decision date). Thus, disability evidence completely unrelated to the relevant period is irrelevant to adjudication of the claim. Nevertheless, the district court correctly recognized that pre-application medical records may be relevant to the existence of a disability during the relevant period, though this court will not opine on whether such instances are “rare.” Compare with Goudy v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 4:18-cv-64-RP, 2020 WL 61042, at -3 (N. D. Miss. 2020) (distinguishing the district court opinion in this case and concluding that the ALJ failed to fully and fairly develop the record by failing to obtain a pre-application x-ray). Cauthen argues that pre-application evidence of degenerative conditions should be considered relevant to show disability during the relevant period. This argument has some merit, especially because some of the pre- and post-application medical records appear to relate to similar conditions. The fact that a condition “standing alone, does not establish the presence of any particular work-related limitations,” does not mean the preapplication medical records and diagnoses are completely irrelevant to determining the existence and severity of a disability during the relevant period. Given, however, that the medical records during the applicable period were either normal or unrelated to Cauthen’s determinable impairments, the district court was arguably correct to consider the prior medical records irrelevant. But even if they should have been deemed 4 Case: 20-60390 Document: 00515579947 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/25/2020 No. 20-60390 relevant, any error was harmless because evidence within the relevant period could be reasonably afforded greater weight than evidence prior to the application period. See Graves, 837 F.3d at 592–93 (“Yet this Court will not reverse the decision of an ALJ for failure to fully and fairly develop the record unless the claimant shows that he or she was prejudiced by the ALJ’s failure.” (quotation and alterations omitted) (citing cases)). In any event, the ALJ developed the whole record, including pre-application medical records, and determined that Cauthen’s conditions were not severe.