United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY REVIEWING THE COMMISSIONER'S
DECISION
JAMES
R. SWEENEY II, JUDGE
Plaintiff
William T. protectively applied for disability insurance
benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income
(“SSI”) from the Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) on April 13, 2015, alleging an onset date
of February 1, 2014. [ECF No. 7-2 at 11.] His
applications were initially denied on June 9, 2015, [ECF
No. 7-4 at 2; ECF No. 7-4 at 6], and upon
reconsideration on July 13, 2015, [ECF No. 7-4 at
12; ECF No. 7-4 at 15]. Administrative Law
Judge Daniel Mages (the “ALJ”) conducted a
hearing on March 22, 2017. [ECF No. 7-2 at 31-57.]
During the hearing, the Plaintiff amended his alleged onset
of disability to February 21, 2014. [ECF No. 7-2 at
11; see ECF No. 7-2 at 34.] The ALJ issued a
decision on June 28, 2017, concluding that the Plaintiff was
not entitled to receive DIB or SSI. [ECF No. 7-2 at
8.] The Appeals Council denied review on April 16, 2018.
[ECF No. 7-2 at 2.] On June 12, 2018, the Plaintiff
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). [ECF 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 (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 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), [2] 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). “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. See 20 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
The
Plaintiff was 44 years of age at the time he applied for DIB
and SSI. [ECF No. 7-5 at 2.] He has completed a high
school education, specialized training in auto body repair,
and a certification in heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (“HVAC”). [ECF No. 7-6 at
7.] He previously worked as a sales representative in
retail. [ECF 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 the Plaintiff was not disabled. [ECF No.
7-2 at 23.] Specifically, the ALJ found as follows:
• The Plaintiff last met the insured status requirements
for DIB on September 30, 2016 (the date last insured or
“DLI”).[4] [ECF No. 7-2 at 13.]
• At Step One, the Plaintiff had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity[5] since February 21, 2014, the
amended onset date. [ECF No. 7-2 at 13.]
• At Step Two, he had “the following severe
impairments: a partial tear in the right wrist with
tendinopathy, right cubital tunnel syndrome, degenerative
disc disease, asthma, obstructive sleep apnea, anemia, and
obesity.” [ECF No. 7-2 at 13 (internal
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. [ECF No. 7-2
at 15.]
• After Step Three but before Step Four, he had the RFC
“to perform a range of light work (20 CFR 404.1567(b)
and 416.967(b)) defined as follows: sitting up to thirty
minutes at one time and six hours during an eight-hour
workday; standing and/or walking up to thirty minutes at one
time and six hours during an eight-hour workday, with the use
of a cane for walking; lifting, carrying, pushing, and
pulling twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently;
occasionally climbing ramps and stairs, stooping, kneeling,
crouching, and crawling; no climbing ladders, ropes or
scaffolds; frequent fingering, handling, and reaching with
the non-dominant right upper extremity; and occasional
exposure to extreme heat, extreme cold, humidity, dusts,
fumes, gases, and other respiratory irritants.”
[ECF No. 7-2 at 16.]
• At Step Four, relying on the testimony of the
vocational expert (“VE”) and considering the
Plaintiff's RFC, he was incapable of performing any of
his past relevant work as a building maintenance ...