United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY ON JUDICIAL REVIEW
Hon.
William T. Lawrence, Senior United States District Judge.
Plaintiff
Leya S. requests judicial review of the final decision of
Defendant Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”), denying her applications for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). The Court
rules as follows.
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The
Plaintiff filed her applications for SSI and DIB on October
20, 2014, alleging an onset of disability on September 10,
2014. The Social Security Administration (“SSA”)
initially denied the Plaintiff's applications on February
13, 2015. After she timely requested reconsideration, SSA
again denied her claim on July 24, 2015. Thereafter, the
Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ held a hearing on May 16,
2017, at which the Plaintiff, represented by counsel, and a
vocational expert (“VE”) testified. The ALJ
issued a decision denying the Plaintiff's applications on
December 13, 2017. After the Appeals Council upheld the
decision on June 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed this action
seeking judicial review.
II.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD
The
relevant evidence of record is amply set forth in the
parties' briefs and need not be repeated here. Specific
facts relevant to the Court's disposition of this case
are discussed below.
III.
APPLICABLE STANDARD
Disability
is defined as “the inability to engage in any
substantial gainful activity by reason of a medically
determinable mental or physical impairment which can be
expected to result in death, or which has lasted or can be
expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve
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 that
exists in the national economy, considering her age,
education, and work experience. 42 U.S.C. §
423(d)(2)(A).
In
determining whether a claimant is disabled, the Commissioner
employs a five-step sequential analysis. 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(b).[2] At step two, if
the claimant does not have a “severe” impairment
(i.e., one that significantly limits her ability to perform
basic work activities), she is not disabled. 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. pt. 404,
subpt. P, App. 1, and whether the impairment meets the
twelve- month durational requirement; if so, the claimant is
deemed disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). At step four,
if the claimant is able to perform her past relevant work,
she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). At step
five, if the claimant can perform any other work in the
national economy, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(g).
In
reviewing the ALJ's decision, the ALJ's findings of
fact are conclusive and must be upheld by this Court
“so long as substantial evidence supports them and no
error of law occurred.” Dixon v. Massanari,
270 F.3d 1171, 1176 (7th Cir. 2001). “Substantial
evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, ”
id., and this Court may not reweigh the evidence or
substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ, Overman v.
Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). To be
affirmed, the ALJ must articulate her analysis of the
evidence in her decision; while she “is not required to
address every piece of evidence or testimony presented,
” she must “provide an accurate and logical
bridge between the evidence and her conclusion that a
claimant is not disabled.” Kastner v. Astrue,
697 F.3d 642, 646 (7th Cir. 2012). “If a decision lacks
evidentiary support or is so poorly articulated as to prevent
meaningful review, a remand is required.” Id.
(citation omitted).
IV.
THE ALJ'S DECISION
The ALJ
found at step one that the Plaintiff had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since September 10, 2014, the
alleged onset date. At step two, the ALJ determined that the
Plaintiff had “the following severe impairments:
pseudotumor cerebri with benign intracranial hypertension,
chronic headache, thoracic spine syrinx/syringomyelia with
history of low back pain, degenerative disc disease of the
cervical spine, obesity, vision impairment, focal
cartilaginous defect of the knees bilaterally, history of
seizure vs. syncope, depression, dysthymic disorder, anxiety
with panic attack, obsessive compulsive disorder, and panic
disorder without agoraphobia.” R. at 18 (citation
omitted). The ALJ found at step three that the impairments,
or combination of impairments, did not meet or equal the
severity of one of the listed impairments. The ALJ's
residual functional capacity (“RFC”)
determination was as follows:
After careful consideration of the entire record, the
undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual
functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in
20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except lift, push, pull,
and carry ten pounds occasionally and five pounds frequently;
sit, stand, and walk each six hours of an eight-hour workday;
never climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolding; occasionally
balance, kneel, crouch, and climb stairs and ramps; only
occasionally stoop but no stooping below the waist; never
crawl; no exposure to unprotected heights or dangerous
machinery; limited to simple and routine work; limited to
work that allows the individual to be off task five percent
of the workday in addition to regularly scheduled breaks; and
limited to work that requires no greater than frequent depth
perception.
R. at 17. At step four, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff was
unable to perform her past relevant work as a CNA. At step
five, the ALJ found, based on VE testimony and considering
the Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC,
that there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in
the national economy that she could perform, including
addresser, mail ...