United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
S. VAN BOKKELEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Beverly Lyn Sneed seeks judicial review of the Social
Security Commissioner's decision denying her disability
benefits, and asks this Court to remand the case. For the
reasons below, this Court remands the case.
Overview of the Case
alleges that she became disabled on November 19, 2010. (R. at
233.) Plaintiff previously worked part-time at a cleaning
company and at various Burger King locations. (R. at 602-06.)
Plaintiff has not worked since 2008. (R. at 602.)
Administrative Law Judge Dennis R. Kramer found that
Plaintiff suffered from several severe physical and mental
conditions. (R. at 562.) Yet, the ALJ concluded that she
could perform some light, unskilled work, so long as
interactions with the public were limited and only simple
tasks were required. (R. at 575.) Therefore, the ALJ denied
her benefits. (R. at 578.) This denial became final when the
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review.
(R. at 542.)
Standard of Review
Court has authority to review the Commissioner's decision
under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court will ensure that the
ALJ built an “accurate and logical bridge” from
evidence to conclusion. Thomas v. Colvin, 745 F.3d
802, 806 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court will uphold decisions
that apply the correct legal standard and are supported by
substantial evidence. Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v.
Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 351 (7th Cir. 2005).
Commissioner follows a five-step inquiry in evaluating claims
for disability benefits under the Social Security Act:
(1) whether the claimant is currently employed; (2) whether
the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the
claimant's impairment is one that the Commissioner
considers conclusively disabling; (4) if the claimant does
not have a conclusively disabling impairment, whether he can
perform his past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant
is capable of performing any work in the national economy.
Kastner v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 642, 646 (7th Cir.
claimant bears the burden of proof at every step except step
five. Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir.
argues that the ALJ erred in finding that she can work.
Specifically, she argues that the ALJ: (1) improperly
assessed Plaintiff's hand limitations, (2) improperly
dismissed the Agency examiner's opinion, (3) improperly
discredited Plaintiff's testimony, (4) ignored
Plaintiff's anger issues, and (5) ignored Plaintiff's
The ALJ Properly Assessed Plaintiff's ...