United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Michael T. Mason, Magistrate Judge
Calvin Glover seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration (“SSA”)
terminating his Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security
Act (the “Act”). The parties have consented to
the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons that
follow, Claimant's motion to reverse the final decision
of the Commissioner or remand  is granted and the
Commissioner's motion for summary judgment  is
was born October 25, 1993, and received SSI as a child due to
a disability. (R. 23.) As required under the Act,
Claimant's eligibility for SSI was re-evaluated under the
rules for determining adult disability when he attained the
age of eighteen. See 42 U.S.C. §
1382c(a)(3)(H)(iii). On April 25, 2012, the SSA determined
that Claimant was no longer disabled as of April 1, 2012. (R.
23.) This decision was upheld upon reconsideration on March
4, 2013. (R. 90-92; 99-109.) Following both denials, Claimant
filed a hearing request on March 11, 2013, pursuant to 20
C.F.R. § 404.929 et seq. (R. 114-16.) A hearing
was held on June 3, 2014 before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”). (R. 139.) After he was informed of his
right to representation, Claimant appeared at the hearing
without the assistance of an attorney or other
representative. (R. 36-89.) A Vocational Expert
(“VE”) was also present and offered testimony.
(R. 82-88.) On December 4, 2014, the ALJ issued a written
decision denying Claimant's SSI claim. (R. 23-31.)
Claimant then requested review by the Appeals Council. (R.
13-14; 17-19.) On April 8, 2016, the Appeals Council denied
his request for review, at which time the ALJ's decision
became the final decision of the Commissioner. (R. 1-7);
Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 883 (7th Cir.
2001). Claimant subsequently filed this action in the
medical records reflect that between 2007 and 2012 Claimant
sought treatment at Christian Community Health Center for
asthma, back pain, and other general health issues. (R.
336-61; 397-407.) He was treated with Albuterol for his
asthma, and on at least one occasion, ibuprofen for his back
pain. (R. 399-400.) In April 2011, Claimant was examined by
his school nurse who reported that he had a heart murmur,
which did not affect his physical activity level, and asthma,
which was controlled with an inhaler and did not impact his
ability to attend school or participate in regular physical
education. (R. 185-87.)
one month later, Claimant was identified as a student with a
learning disability and underwent a psychological evaluation
performed by Carolyn Hall-Pilate, a psychologist. (R.
188-91.) The examination revealed that Claimant had a full
scale intellectual quotient (“IQ”) of 77, placing
him within the borderline range of intellectual functioning.
March 3, 2012, Dr. Albert Osei, M.D., performed a
consultative examination of Claimant at the behest of the
Bureau of Disability Determination Services. (R. 362- 65.)
Claimant stated that he had suffered from asthma since
childhood and used an inhaler when he engaged in physical
activities such as mixed martial arts, running, and
basketball. (R. 362.) Upon examination, Claimant's lungs
were clear, he had full range of motion in all of his joints,
and his mental status examination revealed that his behavior
and ability to relate during the exam were normal. (R.
month later, Claimant underwent another consultative
examination with Dr. Piyush Buch, M.D. (R. 368-69.) In his
report dated April 5, 2012, Dr. Buch noted Claimant's
history of disruptive behavior, including fighting, arguing,
and “talking back.” (R. 368.) He diagnosed him
with impulse control disorder. (R. 369.) After asking
Claimant several cognitive and behavioral questions, Dr. Buch
opined that Claimant was able to understand and remember
instructions, but had difficultly carrying them out.
afterward, on April 17, 2012, Dr. Donald Cochran, Ph.D.,
reviewed Claimant's records and performed a psychiatric
review. (R. 371-88.) Dr. Cochran concluded that Claimant
would be “markedly limited” in his ability to
interact appropriately with the general public and
understand, remember, or carry out detailed instructions. (R.
385-86.) He opined that Claimant would “do best”
in settings that did not require extensive social
interaction, but that he would also have “some
difficulty” working independently with usual
supervision. (R. 387.)
days later, Dr. Bharati Jhaveri, M.D., performed a physical
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment
of Claimant based on his records. (R. 389-96.) Dr. Jhaveri
found that Claimant had no postural, manipulative, vision, or
communicative limitations, but limited him to work at a
medium exertional level. (R. 390-93). He also noted that
Claimant should avoid concentrated exposure to fumes, odors,
dust, gases, and poor ventilation due to his asthma.
November 7, 2012, at the direction of Dr. Shari Davis, M.D.,
Claimant underwent an x-ray of his lumbar and cervical
spines. (R. 409.) The results of both exams were
unremarkable. (Id.) Claimant was also scheduled to
undergo a CT scan of his thoracic spine, but it was
December 8, 2012, state agency medical consultant, Dr. Donna
Hudspeth, Psy.D., completed an Advisory Psychiatric Review
Technique form, in which she opined that Claimant's
mental impairments did not meet a listing. (R. 411-28.) Dr.
Hudspeth then completed a mental RFC assessment and found
that Claimant's impairments imposed moderate limitations
on his ability to maintain attention and concentration for
extended periods of time, carry out, understand, and remember
detailed instructions, work in coordination with or proximity
to others without being distracted by them, complete a normal
work day and work week without interruption, interact
appropriately with the general public, get along with
coworkers or peers without distracting them or exhibiting
behavioral extremes, and set realistic goals or make plans
independently of others. (R. 411-12.) Similarly, she
determined that Claimant would have moderate difficulties in
maintaining concentration, persistence, pace, and social
function. (R. 425.) Ultimately, Dr. Hudspeth opined that
Claimant retained the ability to understand, remember, and
carry out at least simple, one- to two-step repetitive tasks,
and that he could adequately adapt to work settings and
routine changes, but that his work setting should limit his
social demands. (R. 413.)
days later, on December 12, 2012, Dr. George Andrews, M.D., a
state agency medical consultant, completed a physical RFC
assessment where he reported that Claimant had no exertional,
manipulative, postural, or communicative limitations, but
that he should “avoid even moderate exposure” to
pulmonary irritants such as fumes, odors, and gases due to
his history of asthma. (R. 429-36.)
appeared at his administrative hearing on June 3, 2014. (R.
39-88.) After the ALJ advised Claimant of his right to
representation, Claimant decided to proceed without the
assistance of an attorney or other representative. (R.
testified that he was born on October 25, 1993 and was twenty
years old at the time of the hearing. (R. 48.) In terms of
his education, Claimant stated that he had dropped out of
high school during the first quarter of his senior year
because “it started getting confusing” and there
was too much pressure on him. (R. 48-49.) Claimant explained
that since he dropped out he had not attempted to obtain a
high school equivalent education or enroll in any other
courses. (R. 49.)
Claimant testified regarding his work history.
(Id.). Claimant stated that he was hired in April
2013 as a porter at Burger King, where his job duties
included sweeping, mopping, and lifting heavy boxes. (R.
49-50.) Claimant testified that he could not perform the
lifting requirement of his job due to his back pain, so he
was later limited to just sweeping and mopping.
(Id.) Claimant reported that he worked three hours
per week for four months, but quit because he could not
afford transportation to get to work. (R. 50-51; 56.) Beyond
a two-month period of employment at McDonalds in 2012,
Claimant stated he was unable to obtain other work because he
did not have transportation or missed the orientation days.
reported that he is primarily unable to work due to his back
pain. (R. 60.) He stated that he has experienced back pain
his entire life, but he never had the cause of the pain
successfully investigated by a doctor. (R. 62.) He explained
that he had scheduled a CAT scan on his back, but it was not
completed due to a misunderstanding at the doctor's
office where he left before the scan could be performed.
testified that he still has asthma, which causes him sharp
pains in his heart when he walks up stairs. (R. 66.) He
stated that ...