claimant disabled notwithstanding evidence of bladder leakage and possible need for a second operation); see also SSR 96-8P, 1996 WL 374184, at *1 (1996) (“The RFC assessment considers only functional limitations and restrictions that result from an individual’s medically determinable impairment ... including the impact of any related symptoms.”). Unlike the administrative law judge, the Appeals Council had the benefit of a letter by Dr. Lugo, stating in August 2010 that Mr. Villalobos then had depression and anxiety. See Aplt. App. Vol. 2, at 601. But this assessment was not retroactive. See id. As a result, the Appeals Council did not err in declining to reassess Mr. Villalobos’s mental capacity in light of Dr. Lugo’s letter. See Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1329 (10th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Findings on the Demands of the Past Relevant
holding trial court did not err by failing to consider amended petition filed after hearing without leave of court holding that appeals council did not explicitly or implicitly reopen case and stating that appeals council must be afforded opportunity to look far enough into record to determine whether res judicata applies holding that additional records submitted to the appeals council are part of the administrative record for judicial review holding that trial court did not err holding that the appeals council did not err by failing to find a medically determinable impairment based on a physicians diagnosis of major depression 2l months after the administrative law judge had issued a decision