Court Opinion

ID: 9914350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-30 01:01:12.177981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:25.951542
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40401        Document: 00517017135             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/29/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 23-40401
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                               December 29, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   Bradley Thomas Boone,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security; Kelly
   Matthews, Administrative Law Judge,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:21-CV-279
                     ______________________________

   Before Clement, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         In 2016, Bradley Boone filed an application with the Social Security
   Administration for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
   income benefits. When his application was denied, Boone requested a
   hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ, Kelly Mathews,
   conducted the Social Security Administration’s five-step evaluation process
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40401      Document: 00517017135          Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                    No. 23-40401

   for determining whether an individual is disabled within the meaning of the
   Social Security Act. The ALJ found that Boone (1) had “not engaged in
   substantial gainful activity” since the date of his alleged disability; (2) was
   severely medically impaired; (3) did not have an impairment that met the
   severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,
   Appendix 1; (4) did not have the residual functional capacity to perform his
   past work as an airplane pilot; and (5) did have the residual functional
   capacity to perform “the full range of sedentary work,” and thus was
   “capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in
   significant numbers in the national economy.” The ALJ therefore concluded
   that Boone was not disabled. Boone requested review of the ALJ’s decision,
   but his request was denied by the Social Security Administration’s Appeals
   Council.
          Boone then sought judicial review of the Social Security
   Administration’s decision. The district court determined that the record
   “lack[ed] substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that Boone [was]
   capable of performing sedentary work,” and therefore reversed the decision
   of the ALJ and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration’s
   Appeals Council. Boone v. Saul, No. 3:19-CV-00175, 2020 WL 2150523, at
   *3–4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL
   2130992 (S.D. Tex. May 5, 2020). The Appeals Council, in turn, remanded
   back to the ALJ for a new hearing and decision.
          ALJ Matthews held a new hearing on November 3, 2020, and issued a
   new decision on December 17, 2020. The ALJ’s new five-step evaluation
   reached the same conclusions as her original evaluation with the exception of
   Step 5, at which the ALJ recognized that Boone could only “sit for 30 minutes
   at a time and then would need to stand for 5-10 minutes before resuming a
   sitting position” but nonetheless found that Boone had the residual
   functional capacity to perform at least some sedentary work and that such

                                         2
Case: 23-40401       Document: 00517017135             Page: 3      Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                        No. 23-40401

   jobs were available. So, ALJ Matthews again held that Boone was not
   disabled. The Appeals Council again denied Boone’s request to review the
   ALJ’s decision, and Boone again returned to federal court. 1 This time, the
   district court granted summary judgment to the Social Security
   Administration. Boone appeals, pro se.
          Our review of social security disability claims is “exceedingly
   deferential and limited to two inquiries: whether substantial evidence
   supports the ALJ’s decision, and whether the ALJ applied the proper legal
   standards when evaluating the evidence.” Taylor v. Astrue, 706 F.3d 600, 602
   (5th Cir. 2012). Although Boone raises multiple issues on appeal, only two
   fall within this scope.
          First, Boone contends that ALJ Matthews lacked substantial evidence
   in support of her determination that Boone was not disabled within the
   meaning of the Social Security Act. We disagree. As the district court
   explained, “the ALJ thoroughly reviewed Boone’s medical records and the
   medical opinions therein,” and this documentation “provide[d] substantial
   evidence that supports the ALJ’s decision.”
          Second, Boone claims that ALJ Matthews’ decision contradicted the
   factual findings and legal conclusions in the district court’s remand decision.
   But it did not. Again, the district court’s decision explains why:
          [The district court] previously . . . remand[ed] because there
          was not substantial evidence in the record “to support a
          sedentary exertional level.” Specifically, [the court] found that
          although the record supported “that Boone can sit for a

          _____________________
          1
            Boone filed in federal court in October 2021—after the ALJ’s December 2020
   decision but before the Appeals Council’s September 2022 denial. The district court
   forgave Boone’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit due to
   “extraordinary circumstances.”

                                              3
Case: 23-40401     Document: 00517017135           Page: 4   Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                    No. 23-40401

          maximum of 30 minutes,” the record did not support “that
          Boone can sit six hours of an eight-hour workday,” which is
          what “sedentary work” implies. On remand, ALJ Matthews
          fully addressed this issue by confirming with a vocational
          expert that there exist sedentary occupations in the national
          economy in significant numbers that would accommodate
          someone like Boone who can sit for only 30 minutes at a time.
   So, far from contradicting the findings in the district court’s remand order,
   the ALJ’s subsequent decision faithfully adhered to them and considered
   whether appropriate occupations were available that could accommodate
   Boone’s limitation.
          As for Boone’s remaining claims on appeal—including, among other
   contentions, that the district court violated Boone’s civil rights in
   adjudicating his case, that ALJ Matthews perjured herself, and that the
   district court attempted to cover up ALJ Matthews’ perjury—we find them
   to be outside of the limited scope of our review and, in any event, meritless.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         4