United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN, District Judge.
Robert Norris seeks review of the Social Security Administration's decision denying him disability benefits. An ALJ determined that Norris is not disabled under federal law. Norris requests that this court reverse the agency's decision, find that he is entitled to benefits, and remand to the agency. Because substantial evidence supports the agency's decisions, its findings of fact are conclusive. The court, therefore, affirms the agency's decision.
Federal law provides benefits and supplemental security income to certain individuals who are disabled and who can no longer work. To be eligible for benefits, an individual must have a "disability" within the meaning of federal law. A person, generally, is disabled if he or she has an:
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. § 423c. Social Security employs a five-step process to determine whether an applicant for benefits is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. Relevant here are both step three, which considers whether an applicant's impairment is the same as or comparable to an impairment listed in agency regulations, and step four, which considers whether an applicant is able to perform past relevant work. See id. Also relevant is an intermediate step, one that the agency conducts between steps three and four, in which the agency considers the most that a person in the same position as the claimant is able to do. See id.; § 404.1545(a)(1).
On September 30, 2008, Norris submitted both an application for supplemental security income and an application for disability benefits. A.R. 164, 169; ECF No. 7. Norris stated that he became disabled on August 27, 2008, and that he sought benefits for the following impairments: a heart condition, a back injury, a neck injury, migraines, and asthma. A.R. 84.
After reviewing Norris's submissions, on January 26, 2009, the agency denied Norris's applications because it found that he was not disabled. A.R. 84-85. Social Security based its decision on Norris's prior medical records, his own statements, and how his condition affected his ability to work. A.R. 84. This evidence indicated to the agency that Norris's condition was severe but not one that would prevent him for working for twelve consecutive months. Id.
Within 90 days, Norris requested reconsideration of the agency's decision. A.R. 91. Both a physician and a disability examiner independently reviewed Norris's request and considered additional medical evidence submitted since the agency's initial decision. A.R. 93, 96. On July 16, 2009, after a thorough review of all the submitted information, Social Security determined that its initial determination was proper under law. Id. It found that, based on Norris's description of his previous work as a cashier, Norris would have the ability to work as a cashier within twelve months of the onset of his condition. A.R. 96.
Upon Norris's timely request, an ALJ held a hearing in Norris's case in Peru, Illinois on September 13, 2010. A.R. 40. At the hearing, Norris testified that he was 30-years-old and had trouble driving and reading. A.R. 44, 46, 48. Norris recounted that, over the prior fifteen years, he worked primarily as a cashier and a manager at a fast-food restaurant. A.R. 49. He offered testimony that he has suffered migraines since he was was involved in auto accident on August 27, 2008. A.R. 49, 51. Norris explained that his migraine medication made him dizzy and lightheaded and that it increased his blood pressure. A.R. 51-52. Additionally, Norris also testified that he frequently experienced a rapid heartbeat because of his medication. A.R. 53. Norris described his need to rest six hours a day and nap up to three hours a day. A.R. 55. Norris also testified that he experienced vision trouble every few months. A.R. 57. Norris claimed that all of the above conditions prevented him from walking at length, from shopping, and from using the computer. A.R. 66, 71.
A vocational expert also testified at Norris's hearing. A.R. 74-79. The vocational expert testified that an individual with limitations like Norris's would not be able to work as a fast-food restaurant manager but would be able to work as a cashier. A.R. 75. The vocational expert also identified examples of other jobs in the regional economy that such an individual could perform. Id.
The following month, on October 19, 2010, the ALJ found that Norris was not disabled under the Social Security laws. A.R. 28. The ALJ provided a detailed explanation of the regulatory five-step process. A.R. 22-23. First, the ALJ determined that Norris failed to meet step three because although Norris's impairments were "severe" in nature, they were not the same as or comparable to those listed in applicable regulations. A.R. 24. Further, the ALJ found that Norris had the ability to perform light work. A.R. 24-27. This caused Norris to fail to meet step four because the ALJ concluded that the evidence presented showed that he was capable of performing his past work as a cashier. A.R. 27-28.
On November 3, 2010, Norris sought further review of the ALJ's decision with an appeals council. A.R. 8. The ...