Leqia W. v. Kijakazi

1

LEQIA W., Claimant, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Respondent.

No. 20 CV 5687

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

March 20, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Jeffrey T. Gilbert United States Magistrate Judge.

Claimant Leqia W.^[1](“Claimant”) seeks review of the final decision of Respondent Kilolo Kijakazi,^[2]Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying Claimant's application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act (“Act”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 73.1, the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge for all proceedings, including entry of final judgment. [ECF No. 9]. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C §§ 405(g) and 1383(c), and the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment [ECF Nos. 19, 23] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the reasons discussed below, Claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 19] is denied and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 23] is granted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 22, 2016, Claimant protectively filed a Title II application for DIB alleging disability beginning on July 6 2016. (R. 158-59). Her claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration, after which she requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (R. 112-14). On August 29, 2018, Claimant appeared and testified at a hearing before ALJ Bill Laskaris. (R. 46-67). ALJ Laskaris also heard testimony on that date from impartial vocational expert (“VE”) Linda M. Gels. (R. 67-75). On October 31, 2018, ALJ Laskaris denied Claimant's claim for DIB. (R. 26-38).

In finding Claimant not disabled, the ALJ followed the five-step evaluation process required by Social Security regulations for individuals over the age of 18. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). At step one, the ALJ found that Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 6, 2016, her alleged onset date. (R. 28). At step two, the ALJ found Claimant had a severe impairment or combination of impairments as defined by 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(c). (R. 28). Specifically, Claimant has hypertension, obesity, diabetes mellitus with neuropathy and vision complications, chronic kidney disease, obstructive sleep apnea, and peripheral edema. (R. 28). The ALJ also acknowledged any non-severe impairments contained in the record and concluded they had not even a minimal impact on Claimant's ability to perform work on a regular and continuing basis. (R. 28).

At step three, the ALJ determined that Claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. 28-29). In particular, the ALJ considered listings 4.01H, 9.00, 11.14, and the effect of Claimant's obesity on the listing criteria. Id. The ALJ determined listing 4.01H did not apply because there was no evidence in the record that Claimant's hypertension impacted her body systems to the extent required by the listing criteria. (R. 28-29). Nor did listing 9.00 apply for the same reason. (R. 29). Listing 11.14 also was not met because it requires disorganization of motor function despite prescribed treatment, and the record did not reflect extreme limitation in Claimant's ability to stand up from a seated position, balance, or use her upper extremities. Id. Claimant also did not demonstrate a marked limitation in her physical functioning, nor a marked limitation in one of the “paragraph B” criteria of mental functioning. Id.

The ALJ then found Claimant had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to:

“perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) except she can occasionally push, pull and operate foot controls with the left lower extremity. She can never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds, can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. In addition, the claimant must avoid concentrated exposure to frequent vibrations. She can frequently, but not constantly, handle, or grossly manipulate, objects bilaterally, and can frequently finger, that is fine manipulation of items no smaller than a paperclip bilaterally. The claimant is limited to work that can be performed with frequent near acuity. She cannot read small print type instructions, but can use computers or other machinery that permits the user to enlarge text.” (R. 29).

Based on this RFC, the ALJ found at step four that Claimant had past relevant work as a driver. (R. 36). The mental and physical demands of this work exceeded Claimant's residual functional capacity, and so the ALJ concluded that Claimant would not be able to perform that past relevant work as actually or generally performed. Id. The ALJ then concluded at step five that, considering Claimant's age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity, she is capable of performing other work within the national economy and that those jobs exist in significant numbers. (R. 37). Specifically, the VE's testimony, on which the ALJ relied, identified jobs at the sedentary exertional level including table worker, assembler, and bonder. Id. The ALJ then found Claimant was not under a disability from July 6, 2016 through October 31, 2018, the date of his decision. (R. 37-38).

The Appeals Council agreed to review the matter and issued a decision partially favorable to Claimant on July 30, 2020. (R. 5-17). The Council followed the five-step evaluation process required by Social Security regulations for individuals over the age of 18, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a), and adopted the ALJ's statements regarding the pertinent provisions of the Social Security Act, Social Security Administration Regulations, Social Security Rulings and Acquiescence Rulings, the issues in the case, and the evidentiary facts for the period beginning July 6, 2016 and ending on October 25, 2018. (R. 12-13). At step one, the Council adopted the ALJ's findings and found that Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 6, 2016, her alleged onset date. (R. 13). At step two, the Council adopted the ALJ's findings and found Claimant had the severe impairments or combination of impairments identified by the ALJ and as defined by 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(c) - hypertension, obesity, diabetes mellitus with neuropathy and vision complications, chronic kidney disease, obstructive sleep apnea, and peripheral edema. Id. At step three, the Council determined that Claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. 13). The Council also considered Claimant's subjective symptom statements and adopted the ALJ's conclusions. (R. 15).

Prior to October 26, 2018, the Council found Claimant had substantially the same RFC identified by the ALJ:

“perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a), except that she could occasionally push, pull, and operate foot controls with the left lower extremity; she could never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; she could occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; she must avoid concentrated exposure to frequent vibrations; she could frequently, but not constantly, handle, or grossly manipulate, objects bilaterally; she could frequently finger, that is fine manipulation of items no smaller than a paperclip, bilaterally; she was limited to work that could be performed with frequent near acuity; and she could not read small print type instructions, but could use computers or other machinery that permits the user to enlarge text.” (R. 14).

At step four, the Council noted that Claimant could not perform her past relevant work. (R. 15). At step five, the Council agreed with the ALJ that considering Claimant's age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity, she is capable of performing other work within the national economy and that those jobs exist in significant numbers - namely, jobs at the sedentary exertional level including table worker, assembler, and bonder. Id. The Council then concluded that Claimant was not disabled from July 6, 2016 through October 25, 2018. Id.

On October 26, 2018, the Council determined that the combination of Claimant's glomerular filtration rate (“eGFR”) results and her peripheral neuropathy medically equaled the criteria of Listing 6.05, and so she was disabled as of that date. (R. 13-14). In so finding, the Council relied on the opinion of medical expert Dr. Olatunji Akintilo, MD dated February 3, 2020. (R. 14). Dr. Akintilo reviewed the medical evidence and concluded that Claimant has chronic kidney disease, stage 4, and that the combination of her eGFR findings, renal impairment, and diabetes mellitus with neuropathy medically equals the criteria of Listing 6.05 as of October 26, 2018. Id. “[B]ecause the Secretary has delegated its authority to make final decisions to the Appeals Council,” it is the Appeals Council's decision - incorporating the ALJ's statements about the issues in the case, the evidentiary facts, and certain of the ALJ's conclusions - that constitutes the Secretary's decision for purposes of judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).^[3] Bauzo v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 917, 921 (7th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). The decision of the Appeals Council is therefore final and reviewable by this Court. Id.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a claimant files an application for disability benefits, he or she bears the burden under the Social Security Act of bringing forth evidence that proves his or her...