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.

Eubank v. Berryhill

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

January 19, 2018

LORI MARIE EUBANK, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Lori Marie Eubank 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.

         A. Overview of the Case

         Plaintiff alleges that she became disabled on October 1, 2007. (R. at 150.) Plaintiff previously worked at a hospital, but has not worked since 2007. (R. at 35.) The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Plaintiff suffered from several severe physical and mental conditions (R. at 13), yet, the ALJ concluded that she could perform some light, unskilled work. (R. at 16.) Therefore, the ALJ denied her benefits. (R. at 23.) This denial became final when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (R. at 1.) Plaintiff's date last insured (“DLI”) is December 31, 2012. (R. at 13.)

         B. Standard of Review

         This 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).

         C. Disability Standard

         The 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. 2012).

         The claimant bears the burden of proof at every step except step five. Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2000).

         D. Analysis

         Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in finding that she was not disabled on or before her DLI. Specifically, she argues that the ALJ failed to include certain limitations in his Residual Functional Capacity analysis, ignored evidence that would have shown that Plaintiff equaled step-three listings, improperly analyzed Plaintiff's credibility, improperly held Plaintiff's daily activities against her, and improperly weighed Dr. French's 2013 letter.

         (1) The ALJ Failed to Properly Confront the ...


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.