United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY REVIEWING THE COMMISSIONER'S
DECISION
MARK
J. DINSMORE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
Bruce W. applied for disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”) and/or supplemental security income
(“SSI”) from the Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) on December 15, 2014, alleging an onset
date of October 31, 2014. [Filing No. 9-2 at 13.] His
applications were initially denied on April 30, 2015,
[Filing No. 9-4 at 4; Filing No. 9-4 at
13], and upon reconsideration on July 9, 2015, [Filing
No. 9-4 at 25; Filing No. 9-4 at 32]. Administrative Law
Judge Shelette Veal (the “ALJ”) conducted a
hearing on April 25, 2017. [Filing No. 9-2 at 53-72.] The ALJ
issued a decision on August 15, 2017, concluding that Bruce
W. was not entitled to receive DIB or SSI. [Filing No. 9-2 at
10.] The Appeals Council denied review on July 9, 2018.
[Filing No. 9-2 at 2.] On September 6, 2018, Bruce W. timely
filed this civil action asking the Court to review the denial
of benefits according to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and
1383(c). [Filing No. 1.]
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 (7thCir. 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 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).
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 [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 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 only where all factual issues
have been resolved and the record can yield but one
supportable conclusion.” Id. (citation
omitted).
II.
Background
Bruce
W. was 42 years of age at the time he alleged his disability
began. [Filing No. 9-6 at 2.] He has completed the tenth
grade and previously worked as a housekeeper for a department
store, janitor for a school, and watchman for a foundry.
[Filing No. 9-7 at 7.][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 Bruce W. was not
disabled. [Filing No. 9-2 at 24.] Specifically, the ALJ found
as follows:
• At Step One, Bruce W. had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity[4] since October 31, 2014, the alleged onset
date. [Filing No. 9-2 at 16.]
• At Step Two, he had “the following severe
impairments: peripheral neuropathy, anxiety, and personality
disorder.” [Filing No. 9-2 at 16 (citations omitted).]
• At Step Three, he did not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the
severity of one of the listed impairments. [Filing No. 9-2 at
16.]
• After Step Three but before Step Four, Bruce W. had
the RFC “to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR
404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except he can occasionally lift
ten pounds. He can stand or walk for two hours and sit for
six hours per eight-hour workday. He can occasionally push or
pull with his lower right extremity. He can occasionally
climb ramps, stairs, ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. He can
frequently balance on level surfaces, stoop, kneel, crouch,
or crawl. He can occasionally tolerate exposure to
unprotected moving mechanical parts and unprotected heights.
He can tolerate occasional contact with coworkers,
supervisors, and the public.” [Filing No. 9-2 at 18.]
• At Step Four, relying on the testimony of the
vocational expert (“VE”) considering Bruce
W.'s RFC, he was incapable of performing any of his past
relevant work as a gate guard, janitor, and industrial
cleaner. [Filing No. 9-2 at 22.]
• At Step Five, relying on VE testimony considering
Bruce W.'s age, education, and RFC, there were jobs that
existed in significant numbers in the national economy that
he could have performed through the date of the decision in
representative occupations, including as an addresser, ...