Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pluskis Santiago v. Berryhill

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

July 15, 2019

JENNIFER L. PLUSKIS SANTIAGO, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Jennifer S. 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 remands the Administrative Law Judge's decision.

         A. Overview of the Case

         Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI. In her application, Plaintiff alleged that she became disabled on February 19, 2013. (R. at 16.) After a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) in 2016, the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from the severe impairments of a substance abuse disorder, the late effects of a left wrist laceration, a bipolar disorder, and a personality disorder. (R. at 19.) The ALJ found that Plaintiff had no past relevant work. (R. at 30.) The ALJ did, however, find that a number of jobs existed which Plaintiff could perform. (R. at 31.) Therefore, the ALJ found her to be not disabled. Id. This decision became final when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (R. at 1.)

         B. Standard of Review

         This 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, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971).

         C. Disability Standard

         The 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. 2012). The claimant bears the burden of proof at every step except step five. Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2000).

         D. Analysis

         Plaintiff contends that the ALJ committed four reversible errors: the ALJ failed to accommodate Plaintiff's moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace; the ALJ created an RFC without basis in medical evidence; the ALJ erred in weighing medical opinion evidence; and the ALJ failed to accommodate Plaintiff's mental impairments in the RFC.

         (1) Concentration, Persistence, and Maintaining Pace

         Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred by failing to account for Plaintiff's limitations in concentration, persistence, and maintaining pace in the RFC. The ALJ found that Plaintiff had moderate limitations in her ability to concentrate, persist, or maintain pace. (R. at 21.) The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the capacity to complete simple, routine and repetitive tasks and could tolerate occasional exposure to co-workers and supervisors, but she couldn't interact with the general public. (R. at ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.