United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
S. VAN BOKKELEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Melissa Husk 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 affirms the ALJ's decision.
Overview of the Case
alleges that he became disabled on January 18, 2013. (R. at
163.) Her date last insured (“DLI”) is December
31, 2017. (R. at 167.) Plaintiff most recently worked as a
retail manager, but has not worked since her alleged onset
date. (R. at 56-57.) The Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) found that Plaintiff suffered from severe
physical and mental impairments. (R. at 20.) However, the ALJ
concluded that she could perform other jobs that existed in
significant numbers. (R. at 38.) Therefore, the ALJ denied
her benefits. (R. at 39.) This decision became final when the
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review.
(R. at 1.)
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). This requires the ALJ to
“confront the [plaintiff's] evidence” and
“explain why it was rejected.” Thomas v.
Colvin, 826 F.3d 953, 961 (7th Cir. 2016). 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). Evidence is substantial if “a reasonable mind
might accept [it] as adequate to support [the ALJ's]
conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.
389, 401 (1971).
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. Specifically, Plaintiff challenges the weight that
the ALJ gave to several medical opinions, which Plaintiff
claims corrupted the ALJ's residual functional capacity
The ALJ Properly Weighed the Agency ...