Wills v. Kijakazi

13 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. Kijakazi

    No. 23-30035 (5th Cir. Sep. 6, 2023)   Cited 8 times

    Wills v. Kijakazi, No. 22-20609, 2023 WL 4015174, at *2 (5th Cir. June 14, 2023) (quoting Webster v. Kijakazi, 19 F.4th 715, 718 (5th Cir. 2021)).

  2. Folkens v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

    Civil Action 1:23-CV-00346-MJT (E.D. Tex. Nov. 26, 2024)

    (Tr. 23, 25-26.) Recently, in Wills v. Kijakazi, No. 22-20609, 2023 WL 4015174 (5th Cir. June 14, 2023), the Fifth Circuit rejected the per se approach used by some lower courts (such as Kirkland) and advocated by Folkens. The court noted:

  3. Charnissa N. T. v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.

    3:23-CV-1488-G-BK (N.D. Tex. Sep. 25, 2024)

    The absence of a medical opinion “‘describing the types of work that the applicant is still capable of performing . . . does not, in itself, make the record incomplete.'” Wills v. Kijakazi, No. 22-20609, 2023 WL 4015174, at *3 (5th Cir. June 14, 2023) (per curiam) (quoting Ripley v.Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 557 (5th Cir. 1995)); see also Myers v. Kijakazi, No. 20-CV-445, 2021 WL 3012838, at *4 (W.D. Tex. July 16, 2021), adopted by, 2021 WL 4025993 (Sept. 3, 2021) (explaining that the law does not require a positive statement or positive evidence from a medical source indicating a claimant can perform the demands included in the RFC). Such opinions are simply one category of evidence that the ALJ considers in assessing a claimant's RFC. Wills, 2023 WL 4015174, at *3 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513). “[W]here no medical statement has been provided, [the court's] inquiry focuses upon whether the decision of the ALJ is supported by substantial evidence in the existing record.”

  4. Emma B. v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.

    3:23-CV-1523-BK (N.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2024)

    (Cummings, J.). Further, the absence of a medical opinion “ ‘describing the types of work that the applicant is still capable of performing . . . does not, in itself, make the record incomplete.' ” Wills v. Kijakazi, No. 22-20609, 2023 WL 4015174, at *3 (5th Cir. June 14, 2023) (per curiam) (quoting Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 557 (5th Cir. 1995))

  5. Mary L. v. Comm'r, Social Security Administration

    3:23-CV-1430-BK (N.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2024)

    Further, the absence of a medical opinion “‘describing the types of work that the applicant is still capable of performing . . . does not, in itself, make the record incomplete.'” Wills v. Kijakazi, No. 22-20609, 2023 WL 4015174, at *3 (5th Cir. June 14, 2023) (per curiam) (quoting Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 557 (5th Cir. 1995)); see also Myers v. Kijakazi, No. 20-CV-445, 2021 WL 3012838, at *4 (W.D. Tex. July 16, 2021), adopted by, 2021 WL 4025993 (Sept. 3, 2021) (explaining that the law does not require a positive statement or positive evidence from a medical source indicating a claimant can perform the demands included in the RFC).

  6. Amy H. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

    3:23-CV-1530-BK (N.D. Tex. Jul. 9, 2024)

    Even where the record lacks a medical source statement describing the types of work a claimant is capable of performing, the absence of such a statement does not, in itself, render the record incomplete. Wills v. Kijakazi, No. 22-20609, 2023 WL 4015174, at *3 (5th Cir. June 14, 2023) (per curiam) (citing Ripley, 67 F.3d at 557) (holding that any error by ALJ in relying on “stale” SAMC reports was harmless where the ALJ acknowledged the shortcomings of the reports and incorporated additional symptoms in imposing more restrictive limitations). “Instead, these types of medical opinions are just one of several categories of evidence the ALJ considers in making RFC determinations.” Id.

  7. Skinner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    Civil Action 23-358-JWD-RLB (M.D. La. May. 14, 2024)

    In Wills, the Fifth Circuit concluded that “even if the ALJ did partially rely on [stale] reports, [plaintiff] fail[ed] to show this would constitute error” when she argued “that, by relying on unusable medical opinions, the ALJ effectively did not rely on any medical opinion.” Wills v. Kijakazi, No. 22-20609, 2023 WL 4015174, at *2-3 (5th Cir. June 14, 2023). “Emphasizing the ‘exceedingly deferential' standard of review of ALJs' decisions, the Fifth Circuit held that when the ‘only medical opinion speaking to the effect of a claimant's impairments on her ability to work is provided prior to a significant development in the claimant's condition,' there is no per se rule requiring an ALJ to develop the medical record [by] obtain[ing] an additional consultative examination.” Hess v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV 22-5305, 2024 WL 1231327, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 22, 2024) (citing Wills, 2023 WL 4015174, at *2-3)

  8. Martinez v. Kijakazi

    4:22-cv-04532 (S.D. Tex. May. 1, 2024)

    ” See Wills v. Kijakazi, 2023 WL 4015174, at *3 (5th Cir. June 14, 2023) (per curiam) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c). Findings of partial persuasiveness that favor a claimant, even if erroneous, cannot be prejudicial. See Kemp v. Kijakazi, 2023 WL 2249162, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2023), adopted by 2023 WL 3035372 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2023).

  9. Ruthie L.G v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.

    3:22-CV-2585-BK (N.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2024)   Cited 2 times

    Likewise, Plaintiff's contention that the SAMCs' reports were stale because they were not aware she was using a scooter falls short. See Wills v. Kijakazi, No. 22-20609, 2023 WL 4015174, at *3 (5th Cir. June 14, 2023) (unpublished) (per curiam) (holding that any error by ALJ in relying on “stale” SAMC reports was harmless where the ALJ acknowledged the shortcomings of the reports and incorporated additional symptoms in imposing more restrictive limitations). Finally, the ALJ found support for her RFC determination in Plaintiff's daily activities which included preparing her own meals, driving, shopping online, managing her money, and going to doctor's appointments on her own.

  10. Silvas v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    MO:23-CV-00002-DC (W.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Probst v. Kijakazi, No. EP-22-CV-00286-RFC, 2023 WL 3237435, at *1 (W.D. Tex. May 3, 2023) (cleaned up) (citing Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1995)). Wills v. Kijakazi, No. 22-20609, 2023 WL 4015174, at *2 (5th Cir. June 14, 2023) (cleaned up). Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 461 (5th Cir. 2005)