Ashley R. v. Kijakazi

1

ASHLEY R., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ^[1] Defendant.

No. 1:20-cv-02817-TWP-TAB

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

February 25, 2022

ENTRY ON JUDICIAL REVIEW

HON TANYA WALTON PRATT, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff Ashley R.^[2] requests judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "SSA"), denying her application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under the Social Security Act. For the following reasons, the Court remands the decision of the Commissioner.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 6, 2017, Ashley R. filed an application for SSI alleging a disability onset date of November 1, 2017. (Filing No. 12-5 at 2.) Her application was initially denied on January 18, 2018, (Filing No. 12-4 at 2), and upon reconsideration on May 25, 2018, (Filing No. 12-4 at 13). Administrative Law Judge Janet Akers, (the "ALJ") conducted a hearing on January 29, 2020, at which Ashley R., represented by counsel, and a vocational expert ("VE") appeared and testified. (Filing No. 12-2 at 33-55.) The ALJ issued a decision on March 4, 2020, concluding that Ashley R. was not entitled to receive benefits. (Filing No. 12-2 at 13-25.) The Appeals Council denied review on August 31, 2020. (Filing No. 12-2 at 2.) On October 30, 2020, Ashley R. timely filed this civil action, asking the Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) to review the final decision of the Commissioner denying her benefits. (Filing No. 1.)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides benefits to individuals who cannot obtain work because of a physical or mental disability." Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1151 (2019). Disability is defined as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); Stephens v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 323, 327 (7th Cir. 2018). 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 which exists in the national economy, considering her age, education, and work experience. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).

The Commissioner employs a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 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. § 416.920(a)(4)(i). At step two, if the claimant does not have a "severe" impairment that also meets the durational requirement, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). A severe impairment is one that "significantly limits [a claimant's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities." 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(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. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, and whether the impairment meets the twelve-month duration requirement; if so, the claimant is deemed disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

If the claimant's impairments do not meet or medically equal one of the impairments on the Listing of Impairments, then her residual functional capacity will be assessed and used for the fourth and fifth steps. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv)-(v). Residual functional capacity ("RFC") is the "maximum that a claimant can still do despite [her] mental and physical limitations." Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 675-76 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)^[3]; Social Security Ruling ("SSR") 96-8p (S.S.A. July 2, 1996), 1996 WL 374184). At step four, if the claimant can perform her past relevant work, she is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv). At the fifth and final step, it must be determined whether the claimant can perform any other work, given her RFC and considering her age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). The claimant is not disabled if she can perform any other work in the relevant economy. Id.

The combined effect of all the impairments of the claimant shall be considered throughout the disability determination process. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B). The burden of proof is on the claimant for the first four steps; it then shifts to the Commissioner for the fifth step. Young v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 957 F.2d 386, 389 (7th Cir. 1992).

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. Stephens, 888 F.3d at 327. For the purpose of judicial review, "substantial evidence" is such relevant "evidence that 'a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Zoch v. Saul, 981 F.3d 597, 601 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting Biestek, 139 S.Ct. at 1154). "Although this Court reviews the record as a whole, it cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the SSA by reevaluating the facts, or reweighing the evidence to decide whether a claimant is in fact disabled." Stephens, 888 F.3d at 327. Reviewing courts also "do not decide questions of credibility, deferring instead to the ALJ's conclusions unless 'patently wrong.'" Zoch, 981 F.3d at 601 (quoting Summers v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 523, 528 (7th Cir. 2017)). The Court does "determine whether the ALJ built an 'accurate and logical bridge' between the evidence and the conclusion." Peeters v. Saul, 975 F.3d 639, 641 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 834, 837 (7th Cir. 2014)).

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. Stephens, 888 F.3d at 327. When an ALJ does not apply the correct legal standard, a remand for further proceedings is usually the appropriate remedy. Karr v. Saul, 989 F.3d 508, 513 (7th Cir. 2021). Typically, a remand is also appropriate when the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. 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. (quoting Campbell v. Shalala, 988 F.2d 741, 744 (7th Cir. 1993)).

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

When Ashley R. filed her application for SSI in November 2017, she alleged that she could no longer work because of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. (Filing No. 12-6 at 6.) She was 26 years old when her alleged disability began. (See Filing No. 12-5 at 2.) She had completed the eighth grade with a history of special education. (Filing No. 12-2 at 34-35; Filing No. 12-6 at 7.) She had worked as a driver. (Filing No. 12-2 at 25.) The relevant evidence of record is amply set forth in the parties' briefs, as well as the ALJ's decision and need not be repeated here. Below and in the discussion, are the facts relevant to the Court's disposition of this case.

In early 2017, Ashley R. attempted suicide after she had been off of her medications for several months due to lack of insurance. At her hearing, she testified that she takes medications for her impairments, but they get changed every three to four months because they quit working, then the voices come back and she becomes suicidal. (Filing No. 12-2 at 37.) Despite the last report to her treating providers that she had found a good medication combination, she testified that they were no longer working as they used to and her voices were getting worse again. Id. Even when her medications are working, she hears voices and has suicidal tendencies, but they are not as badly. Id. at 38. She often feels paranoid, and believes people are staring at her and are out to get her. Id. This makes it very difficult for her to go to the doctor or to the grocery store so she usually does not go by herself. Id. She has been working with a life skills instructor twice a week for several years who helps with medication management, getting to and from doctors' appointments, and reminders of appointments because she forgets. Id. at 39. Ashley R. has problems with intense anger and irritability that causes difficulty interacting with people. Id. She does not go out in public very often, she does not get along with others, and she has a hard time holding a job due to her anger issues. Id. at 40.

The ALJ followed the five-step sequential evaluation set forth by the SSA in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4) and concluded that Ashley R. was not disabled. (Filing No. 12-2 at 26.) At step one, the ALJ found that Ashley R. had not engaged in substantial gainful activity^[4] since November 6, 2017, the application date.^[5] (Filing No. 12-2 at 18.) At step two, the ALJ found that Ashley R. had "the following severe impairments: generalized anxiety disorder; borderline personality disorder; bipolar II disorder; post-traumatic stress disorder ('PTSD') and schizoaffective disorder, depressive type." (Filing No. 12-2 at 18 (citation omitted).) At step three, the ALJ found that Ashley R. did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments. (Filing No. 12-2 at 19.) After step three but before step four, the ALJ concluded:

After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a full

...