Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Frazier v. Berryhill

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

June 28, 2018

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Social Security Administration,[1] Defendant.


          Hon. Jane Magntts-Stinson, Chief Judge United States District Court

         Plaintiff Daniel Frazier applied for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and/or supplemental security income (“SSI”) from the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) on July 8, 2013, alleging an onset date of June 16, 2008. [Filing No. 18-2 at 38.] His applications were initially denied on November 6, 2013, [Filing No. 18-5 at 2; Filing No. 18-5 at 6], and upon reconsideration on March 13, 2014, [Filing No. 18-5 at 14; Filing No. 18-5 at 18]. Administrative Law Judge Ronald T. Jordan (the “ALJ”) held a hearing on November 12, 2015, [Filing No. 18-3 at 23-44], and held a supplemental hearing on April 14, 2016, [Filing No. 19-2 at 4-26]. The ALJ issued a decision on June 17, 2016, concluding that Mr. Frazier was not entitled to receive DIB or SSI. [Filing No. 18-2 at 35.] The Appeals Council denied review on June 13, 2017. [Filing No. 18-2 at 2.] On August 4, 2017, Mr. Frazier timely filed this civil action, asking the Court to review the denial of benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c). [Filing No. 1.]


         Standard of Review

          “The Social Security Act authorizes payment of disability insurance benefits … to individuals with disabilities.” Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 214 (2002). “The statutory definition of ‘disability' has two parts. First, it requires a certain kind of inability, namely, an inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity. Second, it requires an impairment, namely, a physical or mental impairment, which provides reason for the inability. The statute adds that the impairment must be one that has lasted or can be expected to last … not less than 12 months.” Id. at 217.

         When an applicant appeals an adverse benefits decision, this Court's role is limited to ensuring that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and that substantial evidence exists for the ALJ's decision. Barnett v. Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). For the purpose of judicial review, “[s]ubstantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quotation omitted). Because the ALJ “is in the best position to determine the credibility of witnesses, ” Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 678 (7th Cir. 2008), this Court must afford the ALJ's credibility determination “considerable deference, ” overturning it only if it is “patently wrong.” Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731, 738 (7th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted).

         The ALJ must apply the five-step inquiry set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), evaluating the following, in sequence:

(1) whether the claimant is currently [un]employed; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the claimant's impairment meets or equals one of the impairments listed by the [Deputy Commissioner]; (4) whether the claimant can perform [his] past work; and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing work in the national economy.

Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted) (alterations in original).[2]“If a claimant satisfies steps one, two, and three, [he] will automatically be found disabled. If a claimant satisfies steps one and two, but not three, then [he] must satisfy step four. Once step four is satisfied, the burden shifts to the SSA to establish that the claimant is capable of performing work in the national economy.” Knight v. Chater, 55 F.3d 309, 313 (7th Cir. 1995).

         After Step Three, but before Step Four, the ALJ must determine a claimant's residual functional capacity (“RFC”) by evaluating “all limitations that arise from medically determinable impairments, even those that are not severe.” Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2009). In doing so, the ALJ “may not dismiss a line of evidence contrary to the ruling.” Id. The ALJ uses the RFC at Step Four to determine whether the claimant can perform his own past relevant work and if not, at Step Five to determine whether the claimant can perform other work. See20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(iv), (v). The burden of proof is on the claimant for Steps One through Four; only at Step Five does the burden shift to the Deputy Commissioner. See Clifford, 227 F.3d at 868.

         If the ALJ committed no legal error and substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ's decision, the Court must affirm the denial of benefits. Barnett, 381 F.3d at 668. When an ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence, a remand for further proceedings is typically the appropriate remedy. Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 355 (7th Cir. 2005). An award of benefits “is appropriate where all factual issues have been resolved and the record can yield but one supportable conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted).



          Mr. Frazier was 36 years of age at the time he applied for DIB and/or SSI. [Filing No. 18-7 at 2.] He has a limited education and previously worked as a forklift operator and a warehouse worker. [Filing No. 18-2 at 48.][3]

         The ALJ followed the five-step sequential evaluation set forth by the Social Security Administration in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) and ultimately concluded that Mr. Frazier was not disabled. [Filing No. 18-2 at 49-50.] The ALJ found as follows:

• At Step One, Mr. Frazier had not engaged in substantial gainful activity[4] since June 16, 2008, the alleged onset date. [Filing No. 18-2 at 40.]
• At Step Two, Mr. Frazier had the following severe impairments: cervical spine degenerative disc disease, left shoulder impingement syndrome (status-post arthroscopic surgery), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease “with continued smoking, ” personality disorder, anxiety, and depression. [Filing No. 18-2 at 41.]
• At Step Three, Mr. Frazier did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed ...

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.