United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY ON JUDICIAL REVIEW
TANYA
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE.
Plaintiff
Cheryl M.[1] requests judicial review of the final
decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (the “SSA”), denying her
applications for Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”) under the Social Security Act (the
“Act”). For the following reasons, the Court
affirms the decision of the Acting
Commissioner.
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On
September 23, 2014, Cheryl M. protectively filed applications
for DIB and SSI. (Filing No. 7-2 at 28.) She initially
alleged a disability onset date of December 31, 2011, (Filing
No. 7-5 at 2), but appears to have amended her onset date to
the date she stopped working, January 15, 2012, (Filing No.
7-6 at 2; Filing No. 7-6 at 6.) Her applications were
initially denied on December 22, 2014, (Filing No. 7-4 at 4;
Filing No. 7-4 at 13), and upon reconsideration on March 17,
2015, (Filing No. 7-4 at 24; Filing No. 7-4 at 31).
Administrative Law Judge Belinda Brown (the
“ALJ”) conducted a hearing on January 24, 2017,
at which Cheryl M., represented by counsel, and a vocational
expert, Matthew Lampley, appeared and testified. (Filing No.
7-2 at 43-63.) The ALJ issued a decision on March 27, 2017,
concluding that Cheryl M. was not entitled to receive DIB or
SSI. (Filing No. 7-2 at 25.) The Appeals Council denied
review on March 15, 2018. (Filing No. 7-2 at 2.) On May 3,
2018, Cheryl M. timely filed this civil action, asking the
Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review the final
decision of the Commissioner denying her benefits. (Filing
No. 1.)
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under
the Act, a claimant may be entitled to benefits only after
she establishes that she is disabled. Disability is defined
as the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or
mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or
which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous
period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §
423(d)(1)(A). To be found disabled, a claimant must
demonstrate that her physical or mental limitations prevent
her from doing not only her previous work but any other kind
of gainful employment which exists in the national economy,
considering her age, education, and work experience. 42
U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
The
Commissioner employs a five-step sequential analysis to
determine whether a claimant is disabled. At step one, if the
claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity, she is
not disabled despite her medical condition and other factors.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i).[2] At step two, if the claimant
does not have a “severe” impairment that also
meets the durational requirement, she is not disabled. 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). A severe impairment is one
that “significantly limits [a claimant's] physical
or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520(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. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, and whether the
impairment meets the twelve-month duration requirement; if
so, the claimant is deemed disabled. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a)(4)(iii).
If the
claimant's impairments do not meet or medically equal one
of the impairments on the Listing of Impairments, then her
residual functional capacity will be assessed and used for
the fourth and fifth steps. Residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) is the “maximum that a claimant can
still do despite [her] mental and physical
limitations.” Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668,
675-76 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. §
404.1545(a)(1); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”)
96-8p). At step four, if the claimant is able to perform her
past relevant work, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(a)(4)(iv). At the fifth and final step, it must be
determined whether the claimant can perform any other work,
given her RFC and considering her age, education, and past
work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). The
claimant is not disabled if she can perform any other work in
the relevant economy.
The
combined effect of all the impairments of the claimant shall
be considered throughout the disability determination
process. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B). The burden of proof
is on the claimant for the first four steps; it then shifts
to the Commissioner for the fifth step. Young v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 957 F.2d 386,
389 (7th Cir. 1992).
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, 539 F.3d at
678, this Court must accord 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).
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 only where all factual issues
have been resolved and the record can yield but one
supportable conclusion.” Id. (citation
omitted).
III.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Cheryl
M. was 50 years of age at the time she applied for benefits,
(Filing No. 7-5 at 2) alleging she could no longer work due
to fibromyalgia, carpal tunnel syndrome in both arms,
arthritis, and spinal stenosis. (Filing No. 7-6 at 68.) She
has completed high school and previously worked in sales,
retail, and as a receptionist. (Filing No. 7-6 at
7.)[3]
The ALJ
followed the five-step sequential evaluation set forth by the
SSA in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) and ultimately
concluded that Cheryl M. was not disabled. (Filing No. 7-2 at
36.) The ALJ found that Cheryl M. last met the insured status
requirements of the Act through September 30, 2014 (the date
last insured or “DLI”).[4] (Filing No. 7-2 at 30.) At
step one, the ALJ found that Cheryl M. had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since January 15, 2012, the
amended onset date.[5]Id. At step two, the ALJ found
that she had the following severe impairments: degenerative
disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine, degenerative
joint disease of the bilateral hips, and bilateral carpal
tunnel syndrome. Id. At step three, the ALJ found
that Cheryl M. did ...