United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
DARREN J. H., [1] Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
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) pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 423.
Procedural
History
Plaintiff
applied for DIB in February 2015, alleging a disability onset
date of August 2, 2014. After holding an evidentiary hearing,
an ALJ denied the application on January 31, 2018. (Tr.
25-37). The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request
for review, rendering the ALJ's decision the final agency
decision. (Tr. 1). Plaintiff exhausted his administrative
remedies and filed a timely complaint with this Court.
Issues
Raised by Plaintiff
Plaintiff
raises the following issues:
1. The ALJ failed to properly evaluate residual functional
capacity (RFC) in that he did not say what weight he gave to
Dr. Parker's opinion.
2. Dr. Parker should have been regarded as a treating
physician and his opinion should have been afforded
significant if not controlling weight.
Applicable
Legal Standards
To
qualify for DIB, a claimant must be disabled within the
meaning of the applicable statutes. 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). This Court uses the Supreme Court's
definition of substantial evidence, 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 ...