JoAngela King v. Kilolo Kijakazi, No. 20-2953 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Wollman, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Disability benefits. Denial of disability benefits affirmed; the ALJ did not abuse his discretion in electing not to subpoena claimant's tax records; due process claims rejected. [ August 02, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2953 ___________________________ JoAngela Evans King lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Kilolo Kijakazi,1 Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: July 6, 2021 Filed: August 3, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. 1 Kilolo Kijakazi has been appointed as Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). JoAngela King appeals the district court’s2 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. After careful consideration of King’s arguments for reversal, we affirm. We agree with the district court that the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not abuse his discretion in electing not to subpoena King’s tax records, see Passmore v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 658, 665-66 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); Yancey v. Apfel, 145 F.3d 106, 113 (2d Cir. 1998) (no abuse of discretion in denying claimant’s request for subpoena, as ALJ allowed claimant fair and meaningful opportunity to present her case, and had no indication that subpoenaing witness would add anything of value to proceedings); and did not otherwise fail to adequately develop the record, see Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881, 886 (8th Cir. 2006) (claimant failed to establish prejudice necessary for reversal due to failure to develop record, as she presented no evidence suggesting that inquiry would have yielded information sought). We also find no due process violation, as King had the opportunity to present arguments at multiple hearings, see Schwandt v. Berryhill, 926 F.3d 1004, 1010 (8th Cir. 2019) (due process requires that parties be afforded opportunity to present their objections); and find no merit to King’s contention that the ALJ was biased against her, see Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 903 (8th Cir. 2011) (claimant must show that ALJ’s behavior displayed clear inability to render fair judgment). The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ 2 The Honorable Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
