United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, New Albany Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN
SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT
Baker United States Magistrate Judge.
David Yielding appeals the Administrative Law Judge's
decision that he was not disabled. Plaintiff argues that the
ALJ's residual functioning capacity determination is not
supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ improperly
discredited Plaintiff's testimony that he needs to
frequently elevate his legs. Plaintiff's brief in support
of complaint [Filing No. 11] should be denied
because the ALJ adequately supported her conclusion that
Plaintiff's testimony was not credible by citing
inconsistencies between Plaintiff's testimony and the
hearing before an ALJ, Plaintiff claimed total disability
beginning on his 50th birthday. The ALJ found that Plaintiff
cannot perform any past relevant work, and his residual
functional capacity was limited to light exertional work with
a sit/stand option, due to his severe impairments: his
history of hernias limited his ability to lift and to lean on
his abdomen; his degenerative disc disease and obesity
limited his ability to lift and to stand; and his rotator
cuff tear limited his ability to use his non-dominant arm.
also had a history of deep vein thrombosis. He was diagnosed
with DVT in his left calf in February 2012 and prescribed
medication. Plaintiff alleged that continued pain and
swelling from the DVT required him to elevate his legs above
his heart for 20 to 45 minutes, seven to eight times per day,
as well as to wear compression stockings, and take daily
Lovenox shots. Plaintiff further alleged the reason he took
only a “conservative” amount of pain medication
is that he could not afford it after losing his insurance.
Court reviews the ALJ's decision to determine whether it
is supported by substantial evidence, i.e. “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Summers v.
Berryhill, 864 F.3d 523, 526 (7th Cir. 2017). From that
evidence, the ALJ must build a logical bridge to her
conclusion. Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 935
(7th Cir. 2015). The Court's substantial-evidence review
is deferential: it will not supplant the ALJ's conclusion
for its own. Summers, 864 F.3d at 526.
the issue is whether the ALJ adequately supported her
conclusion that Plaintiff's testimony that he needed to
frequently elevate his legs was not credible. While other
evidence may support Plaintiff's testimony, no other
source claimed Plaintiff must elevate his legs in the manner
to which Plaintiff testified. To reverse an ALJ's
credibility determination, the claimant must show that the
ALJ was “patently wrong.” Powers v.
Apfel, 207 F.3d 431, 435 (7th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff
fails to meet his burden.
must conduct credibility analyses in accordance with
Social Security Ruling 96-7p. When an ALJ
establishes that a claimant has an impairment that could
reasonably be expected to produce the claimant's alleged
pain, the ALJ must make a specific credibility finding.
SSR 96-7p; Boyd v. Barnhart, 175 Fed.
App'x. 47, 49 (7th Cir. 2006). To evaluate a
claimant's credibility, the ALJ must look to seven
1. The individual's daily activities;
2. The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the
individual's pain or other symptoms;
3. Factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms;
4. The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any
medications the individual takes or has taken to alleviate