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.

Rodgers v. Berryhill

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

January 22, 2018

STANLEY W. RODGERS, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,[1] Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          ENTRY ON JUDICIAL REVIEW

          William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

         Plaintiff Stanley W. Rodgers requests judicial review of the final decision of the Defendant, Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”), denying Rodgers' application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). The Court, having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, rules as follows.

         I. 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. § 416.1520(b). 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. § 416.1520(c). 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. 416, subpt. P, App. 1, and whether the impairment meets the twelvemonth duration requirement; if so, the claimant is deemed disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1520(d). At step four, if the claimant is able to perform his past relevant work, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1520(f). At step five, if the claimant can perform any other work in the national economy, he is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1520(g).

         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. This Court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). In order to be affirmed, the ALJ must articulate his analysis of the evidence in his decision; while he “is not required to address every piece of evidence or testimony presented, ” he must “provide an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and [his] conclusion that a claimant is not disabled.” Kastner v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 642, 646 (7th Cir. 2012). “If a decision lacks evidentiary support or is so poorly articulated as to prevent meaningful review, a remand is required.” Id. (citation omitted).

         II. BACKGROUND

         Rodgers applied for SSI in June 2013, alleging that his disability began June 21, 2013. Rodgers' application was initially denied on August 27, 2013. Rodgers filed a Request for Reconsideration, which was denied on January 28, 2014.

         On March 9, 2015, Rodgers testified at a video hearing in front of Administrative Law Judge David Bruce (“ALJ”). Aimee Mowery testified as the Vocational Expert (“VE”). On May 12, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Rodgers had the residual functional capacity to perform a limited range of light work with certain non-exertional and mental limitations. Based on the VE's testimony, the ALJ found that significant jobs were available in the country that Rodgers could perform and denied his SSI application. The ALJ's decision became the Commissioner's final decision when the Appeals Council denied Rodgers' request for review of the ALJ's decision. Rodgers filed this timely appeal.

         III. THE ALJ'S DECISION

         At step one, the ALJ determined that Rodgers had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 21, 2013. The ALJ then found that Rodgers has the following severe impairments: diabetes, peripheral vasculature disease, borderline intellectual functioning, anxiety, and depression. At step three, the ALJ concluded that Rodgers did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of a listed impairment. At step four, the ALJ determined that Rodgers had the residual functional capacity to perform light work that did not involve unprotected heights and required only simple tasks, simple work-related decisions, and occasional interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public. Finally, the ALJ concluded that there were significant jobs in the national economy that Rodgers could perform given his age, work experience, and residual functional capacity. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Rodgers was not disabled.

         IV. EVIDENCE OF RECORD

         The medical evidence of record is aptly set forth in Rodgers' brief (Dkt. No. 16-1) and need not be recited here. Specific facts are set forth in the discussion section below where relevant.

         V. ...


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.