John K. F. v. Commissioner of Social Security

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          DONALD G. WILKERSON U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         In accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final agency decision denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 423.

         Procedural History

         Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI in June 2014. (Tr. 18). After the agency's final denial, he sought judicial review. The case was remanded to the Commissioner by agreement of the parties. (Tr. 649). Plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of June 24, 2014. The same ALJ then held a second evidentiary hearing and denied the application on August 29, 2018. (Tr. 564-579). The August 2018 is the final agency decision subject to judicial review. Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies and filed a timely complaint with this Court.

         Issues Raised by Plaintiff

         Plaintiff raises the following issues:

         1. The final agency decision is the product of reversible errors of law and is not supported by substantial evidence. This Court should find plaintiff disabled as a matter of law because of uncontradicted evidence of absence from work due to four to five gout flare ups annually, each of which requires absence of at least a week.

         2. The final agency decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is the product of reversible errors of law because the residual functional capacity for sedentary work is not supported by the record.

         Applicable Legal Standards

         To qualify for DIB or SSI, a claimant must be disabled within the meaning of the applicable statutes.^[3] Under the Social Security Act, a person is disabled if he 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 twelve months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(a).

         To determine whether a plaintiff is disabled, the ALJ considers the following five questions in order: (1) Is the plaintiff presently unemployed? (2) Does the plaintiff have a severe impairment? (3) Does the impairment meet or medically equal one of a list of specific impairments enumerated in the regulations? (4) Is the plaintiff unable to perform her former occupation? and (5) Is the plaintiff unable to perform any other work? 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

         An affirmative answer at either step 3 or step 5 leads to a finding that the plaintiff is disabled. A negative answer at any step, other than at step 3, precludes a finding of disability. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof at steps 1-4. Once the plaintiff shows an inability to perform past work, the burden then shifts to the Commissioner to show the plaintiff's ability to engage in other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 886 (7th Cir. 2001).

         This Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to ensure that the decision is supported by substantial evidence and that no mistakes of law were made. It is important to recognize that the scope of review is limited. “The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Thus, this Court must determine not whether plaintiff was, in fact, disabled at the relevant time, but whether the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether any errors of law were made. Lopez ex rel. Lopez v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 535, 539 (7th Cir. 2003). The Supreme Court's definition of substantial evidence applies, i.e., “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (internal citations omitted).

         In reviewing for “substantial evidence, ” the entire administrative record is taken into consideration, but this Court does not reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts, decide questions of credibility, or substitute its own judgment for that of the ALJ. Burmester v. Berryhill, 920 F.3d 507, 510 (7th Cir. 2019). However, while judicial review is deferential, it is not abject; this Court does not act as a rubber stamp for the Commissioner. See, Parker v. Astrue, 597 F.3d 920, 921 (7th Cir. 2010), and cases cited therein.

         The Decision of the ALJ

         The ALJ followed the five-step analytical framework described above. He determined that plaintiff had not worked since the alleged onset date. Plaintiff was insured for DIB through December 31, 2018.

         The ALJ found that plaintiff had severe impairments of gout/inflammatory arthritis, right foot osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, obesity, history of alcohol abuse in remission, history of learning disorder, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, anxiety, and depression, which did not meet or equal a listed impairment.

         The ALJ found that plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to do work at the sedentary exertional level with a number of physical and mental limitations. As is relevant here, he was limited to standing and/or walking for a total of two hours per workday.

         Based on the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ found that plaintiff was not able to do his past relevant work. However, he was not disabled because he was able to do other jobs ...