United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
S. VAN BOKKELEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
Overview of the Case
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.)
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 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.
The ALJ Failed to Properly Confront the ...