Robert V. v. Kijakazi

1

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

No. 22 C 1601

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

November 18, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Jeffrey Cole, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI, respectively, of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§416(I), 423, 1381a, 1382c just over three years ago in June of 2019. (Administrative Record (R.) 284-97). He claimed that he had been disabled since July 6, 2014 (R. 285) due to epilepsy migraines, mood disorder, anxiety, fibromyalgia, and hypertension. (R. 326). Over the next two and a half years plaintiff's application was denied at every level of administrative review: initial, reconsideration administrative law judge (ALJ), and appeals council. It is the ALJ's decision that is before the court for review. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.955; 404.981. Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on March 28, 2022, and the parties consented to my jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) on April 8, 2022. [Dkt. #5]. Plaintiff asks the court to reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision, while the Commissioner seeks an order affirming the decision.

I.

A.

Plaintiff was born on September 15, 1992 (R. 285), making him just twenty-one years old at the time he claims he became unable to work, and just twenty-eight years old at the time of the ALJ's decision. After an administrative hearing at which plaintiff, represented by counsel testified, along with a medical expert and a vocational expert, the ALJ determined the plaintiff had the following severe impairments: seizures, fibromyalgia, opioid use/dependence disorder, cocaine use disorder, bipolar/depression, anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, right shoulder degenerative joint disease, and lumbar spine degenerative disc disease. (R. 18). The ALJ found that additional impairments were non-severe. (R. 18-19). The ALJ then found plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the impairments listed in the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, focusing on the listings that applied to musculoskeletal disorders (1.15, 1.16, 1.18, and 1.19), mental impairments (12.04, 12.06, 12.08, and 12.11), and epilepsy (11.02), and inflammatory arthritis (14.09). (R. 18-19).

The ALJ then determined that plaintiff could perform light work with the following additional limitations:

he can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. He can occasionally climb ramps and stairs. He can frequently balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. He can occasionally reach overhead with the right upper extremity. He needs to avoid work involving hazards of unprotected heights, dangerous moving machinery, and no driving as part of the work. He can learn, understand, remember, and carry out simple work instructions, sustain attention and concentration for simple work tasks, and make simple work related decisions. He can interact occasionally with co-workers and the general public. He can tolerate typical unskilled work type of supervision (supervisor or designee introduction of work tasks, following the introductory period, then occasional work related interactions thereafter). He can perform in a routine work environment with no more than occasional changes, and with avoidance of fast production rate or hourly job quotas.

(R. 20-21).

The ALJ then summarized the medical evidence at length. There was a record of marijuana abuse, as well as prescription drug abuse. There was a history of treatment for seizures, with objective studies and neurological exams, in the main, being normal. There were also lengthy periods where plaintiff indicated he was seizure-free. (R. 21-22, 24-28). There was a thorough neuropsychological evaluation which was normal, with the exception of decreased verbal memory as well as variable attention/working memory and processing speed. (R. 29). There was treatment for a right shoulder injury suffered during a fall during a seizure. (R. 23). And there were therapy sessions for mental impairments and drug abuse. (R. 26-28). The ALJ - relying mostly on the medical record, plaintiff's inconsistent statements, and activities - found that plaintiff's “medically determinable impairments could reasonably cause [his] alleged symptoms; however, the [plaintiff's] statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the reasons explained in this decision.” (R. 21).

The ALJ went over the testimony of the medical expert who reviewed plaintiff's medical record at some length, (R. 32-33), and accepted his opinions and explanations as persuasive, but found the medical evidence did not support that the plaintiff was more limited than Dr. Goldstein found, noting the doctor was a neurologist and familiar with the record. (R. 33). The ALJ rejected the opinions of a number of other treating sources, especially those of a trio of therapists, for varying reasons, such as the lack of any support from treatment notes. (R. 34-35).

Next, the ALJ, relying on the testimony of the vocational expert, found that plaintiff could no longer perform his past medium work as a deliverer, as it required driving. (R. 37). But, again relying on the testimony of the vocational expert, the ALJ found there were other jobs plaintiff could still perform which existed in significant numbers in the national economy: marker, DOT No. 209.587-034, SVP 2, 150,000 positions nationally; inspector, hand packager, DOT No. 559.687-074, SVP 2, 100,000 positions nationally; and label coder, DOT No. 920.587-014, SVP 2, 70,000 positions nationally. (R. 38). Accordingly, the ALJ found plaintiff not disabled and not entitled to benefits under the Act. (R. 38).

II.

The court's review of the ALJ's decision is “extremely limited.” Jarnutowski v. Kijakazi, 48 F.4th 769, 773 (7th Cir. 2022). If the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the court on judicial review must uphold that decision even if the court might have decided the case differently in the first instance. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The substantial evidence standard is not a high hurdle to negotiate. Biestek v. Berryhill, __ U.S. __, __, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019); Albert v. Kijakazi, 34 F.4th 611, 614 (7th Cir. 2022). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). To determine whether substantial evidence exists, the court reviews the record as a whole, but does not attempt to substitute its judgment for the ALJ's by reweighing the evidence, resolving debatable evidentiary conflicts, or determining credibility. Reynolds v. Kijakazi, 25 F.4th 470, 473 (7th Cir. 2022); Gedatus v. Saul, 994 F.3d 893, 900 (7th Cir. 2021). Where reasonable minds could differ on the weight of evidence, the court defers to the ALJ. Karr v. Saul, 989 F.3d 508, 513 (7th Cir. 2021); Zoch v. Saul, 981 F.3d 597, 602 (7th Cir. 2020).

But, in the Seventh Circuit, the ALJ also has an obligation to build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the result to afford the claimant meaningful judicial review of the administrative findings. Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 2015); O'Connor-Spinner v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir.2010). The court has to be able to trace the path of the ALJ's reasoning from evidence to conclusion. Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 938 (7th Cir. 2015); Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805, 812 (7th Cir. 2011). The Seventh Circuit has explained that, even if the court agrees with the ultimate result, the case must be remanded if the ALJ fails in his or her obligation to build that logical bridge. Sarchet v. Chater, 78 F.3d 305, 307 (7th Cir. 1996)(“. . . we cannot uphold a decision by an administrative agency, any more than we can uphold a decision by a district court, if, while there is enough evidence in the record to support the decision, the reasons given by the trier of fact do not build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the result.”); see also Jarnutowski, 48 F.4th at 774 (“. . . the Commissioner argues, we should affirm the ALJ's decision because it was supported by the evidence. Possibly. But we cannot reach that conclusion from the ALJ's analysis.”); but see, e.g., Riley v. City of Kokomo, 909 F.3d 182, 188 (7th Cir. 2018)(“But we need not address either of those issues here because, even if [plaintiff] were correct on both counts, we may affirm on any basis appearing in the record,....”); Steimel v. Wernert, 823 F.3d 902, 917 (7th Cir. 2016)(“We have serious reservations about this decision, which strikes us as too sweeping. Nonetheless, we may affirm on any basis that fairly appears in the record.”); Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, 679 F.3d 957, 965 (7th Cir. 2012)(“[District court] did not properly allocate the burden of proof on the causation element between the parties,...No matter, because we may affirm on any basis that appears in the record.”).

Of course, this is a subjective standard, and a lack of predictability comes with it for ALJs hoping to write opinions that stand up to judicial review. One reviewer might see an expanse of deep water that can only be traversed by an engineering marvel like the Mackinac Bridge. Another might see a trickle of a creek they can hop across with barely a splash.^[2] But, the Seventh Circuit has also called this requirement “lax.” Elder v. Astrue 529 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2008); Berger v. Astrue, 516 F.3d 539, 545 (7th Cir. 20...