United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
S. VAN BOKKELEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Joyce W. 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 Administrative Law Judge's
Overview of the Case
Plaintiff alleges that she became disabled on June 6, 2014.
(R. at 16.) She also applied for Supplemental Security Income
benefits. (Id.) Plaintiff alleged to suffer from
joint disease, degenerative disk disease, seizure disorder,
diabetes mellitus, obesity, and depression. (R. at 19.) While
the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from severe
impairments, (Id.) she concluded that Plaintiff
could perform past work as a receptionist, personnel clerk,
and data entry clerk. (R. at 31.) Therefore, the ALJ denied
benefits. (R. at 32.) This decision became final when the
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review.
(R. at 7.)
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 denying her disability benefits
for the following reasons: (1) the ALJ did not explain her
Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) finding that
Plaintiff can sit for six hours in an eight-hour workday; (2)
the ALJ improperly found that Plaintiff's functional
deficits were unsupported by the objective medical evidence;
(3) the ALJ improperly determined that Plaintiff's
seizures were the result of an overuse of pain medication;
(4) the ALJ did not properly evaluate Plaintiff's mental
impairments; (5) the ALJ did not properly evaluate the
opinions of Plaintiff's treating physicians; and (6) the
ALJ did not properly evaluate Plaintiff's symptoms. (Pl.
Br. at 9-25.) None of these arguments present reversible
error. Accordingly, the decision of the ALJ is affirmed.
The ALJ Sufficiently Explained Her Finding That Plaintiff Can
Sit for ...