Apke v. Saul

• Decision Date: 16 July 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-2582,19-2582
• Citation: Apke v. Saul, No. 19-2582 (7th Cir. Jul 16, 2020)
• Parties: AIMEE M. APKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

AIMEE M. APKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-2582

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Argued June 2, 2020

July 16, 2020

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 2:18-cv-02098-EIL

Eric I. Long, Magistrate Judge.

ORDER

Aimee Apke, a 37-year-old former cashier, nurse assistant, and in-home health care provider, suffers from fibromyalgia and other physical and mental health impairments. She applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income claiming she was unable to work due to chronic pain and severe symptoms from her fibromyalgia. The Social Security Administration denied her applications. Apke timely sought review of the denials, and an administrative law judge determined she was not disabled under the Social Security Act. After finding there was substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's decision, the district court affirmed the denial. We find no error in the consideration of Apke's claim, so we affirm.

I. Background

Apke was 30 years old in 2014 when she first applied for disability benefits insurance and supplemental security income. She alleged her disability began in October 2010.¹ She formerly worked as a cashier, a nurse assistant, and an in-home health care provider. Shortly after applying for benefits she reported she lived at home with her family and took care of her three children. She bathed them, cooked for them, and attended to their needs. Apke's activities included cleaning the house, washing clothes, washing dishes, driving, shopping in stores for groceries and household items, paying bills, attending church regularly, attending her children's sporting events, and providing primary care for her youngest child who was not yet in school.

Additionally, Apke worked part-time about 20 hours per week answering phones and assisting customers for her father's window business. When she felt pain or fatigue, she was allowed to periodically sit or lay down. Since February 2016, she has maintained a small home-based baking business, working about two weekends per month.

As part of her benefits applications, Apke submitted medical treatment records. The treatment notes from 2011 show she complained of fatigue, back pain, and general all-over pain. She was treated conservatively for mild degenerative disc disease, joint pain, and muscle spasms. In 2012, Apke was diagnosed with fibromyalgia for which she received multiple trigger point injections. She did not require surgery. Over the next several years, Apke was diagnosed with headaches, which were treated with mild medication, and borderline diabetes, which was treated through dietary restrictions. Apke has been treated for mental impairments, including an affective disorder and anxiety. She has not required psychiatric hospitalization or inpatient care.

The Social Security Administration denied Apke's applications initially and again upon reconsideration. Apke, represented by counsel, requested a hearing before an ALJ. Prior to the hearing, Apke's counsel submitted forms from three of Apke's treating physicians: Dr. Alao, Dr. Schue, and Dr. Joag. Each was asked to complete and sign an "abbreviated" residual functional capacity report prepared by Apke's attorney. The report included a checklist for the physicians to complete; it did not include open-ended questions or request the physicians' medical opinions regarding Apke's need to perform light work. These forms required the physicians to opine whether Apke'ssubjective complaints were credible. At the hearing, the ALJ heard testimony from Apke and a vocational expert. After the hearing, the ALJ sought the objective medical opinion of Dr. Anne Winkler, a rheumatologist who assessed Apke's ability to perform light work through a series of open-ended questions.

At issue before the ALJ was whether Apke is entitled to disability benefits pursuant to §§ 216(i) and 223 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) and 423, as well as supplemental security income under §§ 1602 and 1611 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381a and 1382.² The ALJ found that Apke has severe impairments from fibromyalgia, borderline diabetes, headaches, spine disorder, depression, and anxiety. But the ALJ determined that Apke does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 or 416.926. After assessing Apke's residual function capacity, the ALJ found Apke could perform light work as defined. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b). Although Apke is unable to perform her previous jobs as a cashier, nurse assistant, or in-home health care provider, the ALJ determined that she can perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy. In reaching this decision, the ALJ considered all of Apke's symptoms and the extent to which those symptoms could reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence, including medical opinion evidence. To the ALJ, Apke's activities, examinations, and treatments were inconsistent with her allegations of disabling symptoms. So in February 2017, the ALJ issued a decision affirming the Administration's denials of benefits to Apke.

The Social Security Appeals Council denied Apke's request for review, making the ALJ's ruling the final administrative decision. Apke timely sued in federal district court seeking judicial review of the administrative decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district court granted the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment and affirmed the Administration's denial of benefits.

On appeal, Apke claims the ALJ erred in finding no disability. Specifically, she argues the ALJ failed to properly weigh the medical opinion evidence or consider the severity of her subjective fibromyalgia limitations.

II. Analysis

We review the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner's decision de novo. Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306, 310 (7th Cir. 2012). "We will uphold an ALJ's final decision if the correct legal standards were applied and supported with substantial evidence." Burmester v. Berryhill, 920 F.3d 507, 510 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805, 811 (7th Cir. 2011); 42 U.S.C. 405(g)); see also Gebauer v. Saul, 801 Fed. Appx. 404, 408 (7th Cir. 2020) ("This court directly reviews the ALJ's decision to determine whether it applies the correct legal standard and is supported by substantial evidence.") (quoting Summers v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 523, 526 (7th Cir. 2017)). When reviewing the administrative record, we do not "reweigh the evidence or substitute [our] judgment for that of the ALJ." Chavez v. Berryhill, 895 F.3d 962, 968 (7th Cir. 2018); see also Lopez v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 535, 539 (7th Cir. 2003) (In assessing social security decisions, this court does not "reweigh the evidence, resolve conflicts, decide questions of credibility, or substitute our own judgment for that of the Commissioner.") (quoting Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 869 (7th Cir. 2000).

In determining whether a disability exists, the ALJ must consider the claimant's symptoms under a sequential, five-step process. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant was engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). Second, the ALJ must assess whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that is "severe" or a combination of impairments that is "severe." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). Third, the ALJ must evaluate whether the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments is of a severity to meet or medically equal the criteria of an impairment listed in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, 416.926. Before moving onto the next step, the ALJ must also consider the claimant's residual functional capacity, which is assessed by considering all claimed impairments including those that are not severe. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1545, 416.920(e), 416.945. Next, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform the requirements of her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). Finally, the ALJ must assess whether the claimant is able to do any other work by considering her residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). If the claimant can do other work, she is not disabled. While "the ALJ must build a logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion, [] he need not provide a complete written evaluation of every piece of testimony and evidence." Shideler, 688 F.3d at 310 (quoting Schmidt v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 737, 744 (7th Cir. 2005)).

Here, Apke does not argue the ALJ failed to complete the required five-step analysis. Instead, she claims the ALJ erred by not giving enough weight to the medical opinion evidence of her treating physicians and by failing to consider the severity of her subjective fibromyalgia limitations. We focus on only these claims.

A. Medical Opinion Evidence

Under federal regulations, "objective medical evidence" may establish the presence of a medically determinable impairment for disability and social security purposes. See SSR 12-2p. Objective medical evidence may be taken from "all of the evidence in the case record, including the person's daily activities, medications, and other treatments the person uses, or has used, to alleviate symptoms; the nature and frequency of the person's attempt to obtain medical treatment for symptoms; and statements by other people about the person's symptoms." SSR...