Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lewis v. Colvin

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

June 17, 2015

TIMMY A. LEWIS, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.

ENTRY ON JUDICIAL REVIEW

WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, District Judge.

Plaintiff Timmy A. Lewis requests judicial review of the final decision of Defendant, Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"), denying Mr. Lewis' application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act ("the Act"). The Court, having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, now rules as follows.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. Lewis protectively filed for SSI on August 10, 2009, alleging he became disabled on February 1, 2001. Mr. Lewis' application was denied initially on November 17, 2009, and again upon reconsideration on January 11, 2010. Following the denial upon reconsideration, Mr. Lewis requested and received a hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). A hearing, during which Mr. Lewis was represented by counsel, was held before ALJ Stephen E. Davis on June 9, 2011. The ALJ issued his decision denying Mr. Lewis' claim on July 11, 2011. Mr. Lewis requested review by the Appeals Council, and the Appeals Council remanded the decision on May 15, 2012.[1]

A second hearing was thus held before ALJ Ronald T. Jordan on October 4, 2012. ALJ Jordan issued his decision denying Mr. Lewis' claim on February 20, 2013, and the Appeals Council denied his request for review on May 12, 2014. After the Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ's decision, Mr. Lewis filed this timely appeal.

II. APPLICABLE STANDARD

Disability is defined as "the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of a medically determinable mental or physical impairment which can be expected to result in death, or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). In order to be found disabled, a claimant must demonstrate that his physical or mental limitations prevent him from doing not only his previous work, but any other kind of gainful employment which exists in the national economy, considering his age, education, and work experience. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the Commissioner employs a five-step sequential analysis. At step one, if the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity he is not disabled, despite his medical condition and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i). At step two, if the claimant does not have a "severe" impairment (i.e., one that significantly limits his ability to perform basic work activities), he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). At step three, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals any impairment that appears in the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, App. 1, and whether the impairment meets the twelve-month duration requirement; if so, the claimant is deemed disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). At step four, if the claimant is able to perform his past relevant work, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). At step five, if the claimant can perform any other work in the national economy, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v).

In reviewing the ALJ's decision, the ALJ's findings of fact are conclusive and must be upheld by this court "so long as substantial evidence supports them and no error of law occurred." Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1176 (7th Cir. 2001). "Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, " id., and this court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. Binion v. Chater, 108 F.3d 780, 782 (7th Cir. 1997). The ALJ is required to articulate only a minimal, but legitimate, justification for his acceptance or rejection of specific evidence of disability. Scheck v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697, 700 (7th Cir. 2004). In order to be affirmed, the ALJ must articulate his analysis of the evidence in her decision; while he "is not required to address every piece of evidence or testimony, " he must "provide some glimpse into [his] reasoning... [and] build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to [his] conclusion." Dixon, 270 F.3d at 1176.

III. THE ALJ'S DECISION

The ALJ determined at step one that Mr. Lewis had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since August 10, 2009, the application date. At steps two and three, the ALJ concluded that Mr. Lewis had the severe impairments of "a Bipolar Disorder, Depression, an Antisocial Personality Disorder, and a Substance Abuse Disorder, " R. at 24, but that his impairments, singly or in combination, did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment. At step four, the ALJ determined that Mr. Lewis had the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform "a full range of work at all exertional levels, " but that Mr. Lewis was

limited to the performance of simple, repetitive tasks that do not require independent judgment regarding primary work processes. Work goals from day to day should be static and predicable. He should have no contact with the general public necessary to perform the functions of the job and only occasional, superficial contact with coworkers.

Id. at 27. At step five, the ALJ noted that Mr. Lewis had no past relevant work; however, given Mr. Lewis' RFC, and considering Mr. Lewis' age, education, and work experience, the ALJ determined that Mr. Lewis could perform a range of work that exists in the national economy, including work as a packer, laundry bundler, and packing line ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.