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.

William C. v. Saul

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

August 23, 2019

WILLIAM C.[1], Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          ANDREW P. RODOVICH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the court on petition for judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner filed by the plaintiff, William C., on April 4, 2018. For the following reasons, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

         Background

         The plaintiff, William C., filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits on November 7, 2014, alleging a disability onset date of July 17, 2014. (Tr. 17). The Disability Determination Bureau denied his application initially on April 20, 2015, and again upon reconsideration on June 23, 2015. (Tr. 17). William C. subsequently filed a timely request for a hearing on July 1, 2015. (Tr. 17). A video hearing was held on January 18, 2017, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Edward Kristof, and the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on March 31, 2017. (Tr. 17-29). Vocational Expert (VE) Richard Riedl appeared at the hearing. (Tr. 17). The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-6).

         William C. met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2018. (Tr. 19). At step one of the five-step sequential analysis for determining whether an individual is disabled, the ALJ found that William C. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 17, 2014, the alleged onset date. (Tr. 19).

         At step two, the ALJ determined that William C. had the following severe impairments: rheumatoid arthritis, large granular lymphocytic leukemia, and cervical degenerative disc disease. (Tr. 19). The ALJ concluded that William C.'s severe impairments caused more than a minimal limitation on his ability to engage in basic work activities. (Tr. 19). The ALJ also considered, singly and in combination, William C.'s non-severe impairments and concluded that the non-severe impairments did not cause more than minimal limitations in his ability to perform basic work-related activities. (Tr. 21). Additionally, the ALJ indicated that William C.'s alleged fibromyalgia was a non-medically determinable impairment. (Tr. 20).

         The ALJ found that William C.'s mental impairments of depression and anxiety did not cause more than minimal limitations in his ability to work. (Tr. 20). In making this finding, the ALJ considered the paragraph B criteria for mental impairments, which included:

understanding, remembering, or applying information; interacting with others; concentrating, persisting or maintaining pace; and adapting or managing oneself.

(Tr. 21). The ALJ determined that William C. had no limitations in understanding, remembering, or applying information; no limitations in interacting with others; mild limitations in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and mild limitations in adapting or managing himself. (Tr. 21). Because his mental impairments caused no more than “mild” limitations in any of the functional areas, the ALJ determined that they were non-severe. (Tr. 22).

         At step three, the ALJ concluded that William C. did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 22). The ALJ considered listings 1.04, disorders of the spine, 13.06, leukemia, and 14.09, inflammatory arthritis. (Tr. 22-23). The ALJ indicated that no treating or examining physician indicated findings that would satisfy any listed impairment. (Tr. 22).

         After consideration of the entire record, the ALJ then assessed William C.'s residual functional capacity (RFC) as follows:

[T]he claimant has the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) where the claimant can lift, carry, push, and pull up to 20 pounds occasionally and up to 10 pounds frequently. He can stand and/or walk up to 6 hours in an 8-hour workday and sit for at least 6 hours in an 8-hour workday with a sit/stand option of sitting 30 minutes and standing for 10 minutes. He can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, but can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. Manipulatively, he can occasionally handle and finger bilaterally. Environmentally, he can never have concentrated exposure to dust, fumes, gases, and other environmental pollutants. Mentally, he can perform simple, routine, and repetitive tasks, performing essentially the same task in the same place every day, but the work must be free of fast-paced work or pace-rate work.

(Tr. 23). The ALJ explained that in considering William C.'s symptoms he followed a two-step process. (Tr. 23). First, he determined whether there was an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that was shown by a medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic technique that reasonably could be expected to produce William C.'s pain or other symptoms. (Tr. 23). Then, he evaluated the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms to determine the extent to which they limited William C.'s functional limitations. (Tr. 23). The ALJ found that William C.'s medically determinable impairments reasonably could be expected to cause the alleged symptoms. (Tr. 24). However, his statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. (Tr. 24).

         At step four, the ALJ concluded that William C. had no past relevant work. (Tr. 28). Considering William C.'s age, education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ determined that there were jobs in the national economy that he could perform, including parking booth cashier (50, 000 jobs nationally), production inspector (35, 000 nationally), and greeter (15, 000 jobs nationally). (Tr. 29). The ALJ found that William C. had not been under a ...


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.