Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Princess J. v. Berryhill

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division

May 20, 2019

PRINCESS J., Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner for Operations performing the duties and functions not reserved to the Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          ERIC I. LONG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Princess J., proceeding pro se, seeks review under 42 U.S.C. §405(g) of the Social Security Administration's denial of her application for children's supplemental security income on behalf of her son, ZJB. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (#15) be DENIED, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#17) be GRANTED, and the decision to deny benefits be affirmed.

         I. Background

         On May 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed an application for children's supplemental security income, on behalf of her son, alleging disability as of July 1, 2009. The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's claims initially and on reconsideration. Plaintiff, her mother, and ZJB appeared and testified at a video hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ informed Plaintiff of the benefits of obtaining a lawyer, but Plaintiff waived her right to be represented by an attorney. (R. 87-88.)

         On February 1, 2017, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. (R. 61-77.) The ALJ found that ZJB has the severe impairment of asthma. (R. 64.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments, or that functionally equals the severity of the listings and was not disabled. (R. 64.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's ruling the Commissioner's final decision.

         II. Standard of Review

         The court reviews a decision denying benefits to determine only whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision. Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805, 811 (7th Cir. 2011). Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Walker v. Berryhill, 900 F.3d 479, 482 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). When reviewing the administrative record, the Court does not “reweigh the evidence or substitute [its] judgment for that of the ALJ.” Chavez v. Berryhill, 895 F.3d 962, 968 (7th Cir. 2018).

         Stated differently, if reasonable minds could differ as to whether Plaintiff is disabled, the Court must uphold the ALJ's decision to deny benefits. Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306, 310 (7th Cir. 2012). Importantly, “the ALJ must ‘build a logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion, but he need not provide a complete written evaluation of every piece of testimony and evidence.'” Id. (quoting Schmidt v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 737, 744 (7th Cir. 2005).

         III. Analysis

         Plaintiff's Motion, in its entirety, reads:

I the plaintiff, Princess Jenkins am asking for a rehearing or a final decision and I'm asking that you reconsider the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying my child of disability benefits.
In conclusion, I'm asking the court to enter judgment in my favor.

         Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (#15).

         The Court grants pro se plaintiffs wide latitude in presenting their cases. Moore v. Godinez, 2010 WL 3718599 (N.D. Ill. Sept 10, 2010). But, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.