United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
OPINION
RICHARD MILLS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff Jennifer Jones seeks
judicial review of an adverse decision on her claim for
disability insurance benefits under Sections 216(I) and 223
of the Social Security Act.
Pending
are the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and
Defendant's motion for summary affirmance.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
Jennifer Jones alleges disability since May 13, 2010, when
she was 35-years old. The Plaintiff, who has an eighth-grade
education, has a combination of medical problems including
Chiari malformation resulting in chronic headaches,
depression and memory loss. Her last long-term job was as a
CNA at the Illinois Veterans Home, a position she held from
1999 to 2010. None of her jobs after that lasted more than a
couple of weeks.
On July
21, 2016, following the parties' joint motion to remand,
this Court remanded the action to the Social Security
Administration in order for the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) to proceed through the sequential disability evaluation
process as appropriate and issue a new decision. On October
11, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Kelly Wingate Campbell
issued a Decision denying the Plaintiff's applications
for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income pursuant to Titles II and XVI of the Social Security
Act, respectively.
The ALJ
found that the Plaintiff has the following severe
impairments: a history of surgery for Chiari malformation,
headaches/dizziness, cervical degenerative disc disease,
bilateral carpal tunnel, neuropathy, hypertension, obesity,
depression/adjustment/mood disorder, generalized anxiety, a
borderline personality disorder and a posttraumatic stress
disorder. However, no impairment or combination of
impairments meets or medically equals the severity of one of
the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1.
The
ALJ's Decision found the Plaintiff was “not
disabled” at step five of the sequential evaluation
process. Vocational expert Bob Hammond testified that
Plaintiff's past work included CNA (DOT 355.674-014
classified as medium, performed at heavy SVP 4) and cook (DOT
313.361-014, medium SVP 7). The ALJ presented the following
hypothetical: whether an individual of Plaintiff's age,
education and work experience limited to medium work, never
climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds or be exposed to
unprotected heights or hazardous work environments, but could
occasionally climb stairs or ramps; could frequently balance,
occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch or crawl and could
frequently handle or finger; avoid no more than occasional
reaching overhead with the right upper extremity; avoid
concentrated exposure to noise and bright flashing lights or
flickering lights, as well as vibrations, fumes, dust or
pulmonary irritants; would be limited to simple work related
decisions and could have frequent contact with supervisors
and coworkers, but only occasional contact with the public
and would be off task 10% of the work day.
The
vocational expert testified past work is eliminated but the
hypothetical person could perform the following jobs: kitchen
helper (DOT 318.687-010, 164, 000 jobs nationally); cleaner I
(DOT 310.687-014, 121, 000 jobs nationally); both are medium
SVP 2. At the light level, such a person could perform these
jobs: injection molder (DOT 556.685-038, 121, 000 jobs
nationally); press operator (DOT 614.685-014, 127, 000 jobs
nationally); both are SVP 2. If an individual were off task
20%, it would eliminate all jobs as would missing two or more
days of work a month. These jobs would not allow a person to
lie down during any point of the shift. Anything more than
two additional breaks of more than six minutes each would
eliminate all jobs.
The ALJ
relied on the testimony of the vocational expert that a
person of Plaintiff's age, education, vocational profile
and residual functional capacity could adjust to occupations
such as molder and press operator.
Because
the Plaintiff did not seek further review, the ALJ's
Decision became the final Decision of the Commissioner.
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.955, 404.984, 416.1455,
416.1484.
On
appeal, the Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to give
proper weight to the opinion of treating neurosurgeon, Dr.
Julian Lin. She also alleges the ALJ failed to give proper
weight to consider a proper residual functional capacity.
The
Commissioner contends that the ALJ reasonably evaluated the
medical opinion evidence and reasonably evaluated the
Plaintiff's alleged symptoms. Moreover, substantial
...