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.

Chaney v. Berryhill

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

July 10, 2018

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

          CHARLES D. HANKEY, KATHRYN E. OLIVIER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

          CHRISTIE O'BRIEN TATE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

          ENTRY REVIEWING THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION

          MARK J. DINSMORE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Calvin Chaney (“Chaney”) applied for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) from the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) on March 28, 2014, alleging an onset date of October 20, 2010. [Filing No. 8-2 at 22.] His application was initially denied on July 21, 2014, [Filing No. 8-4 at 6], and upon reconsideration on September 18, 2014, [Filing No. 8-4 at 17]. Administrative Law Judge Belinda J. Brown (the “ALJ”) held a hearing on July 12, 2016. [Filing No. 8-2 at 41-66.] The ALJ issued a decision on August 29, 2016, concluding that Chaney was not entitled to receive DIB. [Filing No. 8-2 at 19.] The Appeals Council denied review on July 31, 2017. [Filing No. 8-2 at 2.] On September 28, 2017, Chaney 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.] For the reasons set forth below, the Deputy Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.

         I.

         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). “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).

         II.

         Background

         Chaney was 51 years of age at the time he applied for DIB. [Filing No. 8-5 at 2.] He has completed at least a high school education and previously worked as a warehouse worker, an injection mold operator, and a punch-press operator. [Filing No. 8-2 at 31-32.][2]

         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 Chaney is not disabled. [Filing No. 8-2 at 33.] The ALJ found as follows:

• Chaney last met the insured status requirement of the Social Security Act on September 30, 2014 (his date last insured (“DLI”)).[3] [Filing No. 8-2 at 24.]
• At Step One, Chaney had not engaged in substantial gainful activity[4] from October 20, 2010, the alleged onset date, ...

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.