Britney S. v. Berryhill

• Decision Date: 08 April 2019
• Docket Number: No. 17 C 8470,17 C 8470
• Citation: 366 F.Supp.3d 1022
• Parties: BRITNEY S., Plaintiff, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

366 F.Supp.3d 1022

BRITNEY S.,¹ Plaintiff,

v.Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

No. 17 C 8470

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed April 8, 2019

Michael J. McDonough, Law Offices of Michael J. McDonough, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Sarah J. North, SSA, AUSA, U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Illinois, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Jeffrey Cole, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff applied for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Child's Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423, over four years ago. (Administrative Record (R.) 210-16). He claimed that he became disabled as of January 18, 1989 (R. 210), due to a learning disability, high blood pressure, asthma, and trouble with his hands. (R. 255). Over the ensuing four years, Plaintiff's application was denied at every level of administrative review: initial, reconsideration, administrative law judge (ALJ), and appeals council. It is the ALJ's decision that is before the court for review. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.955 ; 404.981. Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) on February 14, 2018. [Dkt. # 13]. The case was recently reassigned to me on January 10, 2019. [Dkt. # 32]. Plaintiff asks the court to reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision, while the Commissioner seeks an order affirming the decision.

I.

Plaintiff was born on January 18, 1981, and was 34 at the time of the ALJ's decision, and just 22 at the time his insured status expired. (R. 210, 232-33).² He has a Bachelor's Degree, (R. 45, 256). His work record is poor. He has not even worked enough to accumulate anything that can be considered past relevant work. (R. 32). Out of the last 15 years, he has worked just 19 months: at a retail outlet, at a Social Security office, and at a library. (R. 238-39). Most recently, he tried to work with the Postal Service, but couldn't get used to driving with the steering wheel on the right side of the vehicle. (R. 49). He claims he looks for work every day on the computer, but thinks the gaps in his work history are holding him back. (R. 52-53). Plaintiff says there is nothing that would prevent him from doing a simple job. (R. 54).

Plaintiff has testified that he goes to a doctor regularly, every three months (R. 50), but the medical record in this case is, essentially, non-existent. Plaintiff concedes as much in his brief and cites to only one piece of evidence from the record. [Dkt. # 21, at 6]. It is a report from August of 1999, setting forth several goals for Plaintiff to meet in high school. (R. 320). The report indicates that, despite a learning disability, he was making "very significant progress" at that time. (R. 321). He was given a number of accommodations in classes, including teacher generated notes.

Not surprisingly, given the dearth of evidence, following an administrative hearing – at which Plaintiff, his grandmother, and a vocational expert testified – the ALJ determined Plaintiff was not disabled. The ALJ found that Plaintiff had a severe impairment: a learning disability. (R. 26). His impairments of asthma and hypertension were non-severe. They were both well-controlled with medications. (R. 26). While Plaintiff alleged a problem with his hands – dropping things – there was no medical evidence to support the existence of such an impairment. (R. 27). The ALJ summarized the medical evidence and determined that Plaintiff's impairment caused a mild restriction in activities of daily living; no restriction in social functioning; and a moderate restriction in maintaining concentration, persistence, and pace. (R. 27-28). Because not one area was affected to a marked level, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's impairments, either singly or in combination, did not meet or equal a listed impairment assumed to be disabling in the Commissioner's listings. (R. 27-29).

The ALJ then determined that Plaintiff could perform "a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following non-exertional limitations: cannot tolerate concentrated exposure to extreme cold or extreme heat, humidity, dust, odors, fumes, and other pulmonary irritants; can understand, remember, and carry out simple, routine, and repetitive tasks but not at a production rate pace (e.g. no assembly line work); can make simple, work-related decisions; can adapt to changes in a routine work setting; and can interact occasionally with supervisors, and briefly and superficially with coworkers and the general public." (R. 29). Along the way, the ALJ said that he found Plaintiff's "medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, [his] statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for reasons explained in this decision." (R. 31). The ALJ discussed Plaintiff's minimal medical records and his school records, as well as his testimony and his grandmother's. (R. 30-32). He noted that Plaintiff testified that he could perform simple jobs and that his grandmother said he could perform tasks after repetition of instruction and demonstration. (R. 31, 32).

Next, the ALJ – relying on the testimony of the vocational expert – found that Plaintiff could perform the following jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy: packer (5 million jobs), assembler (100,000 jobs), and sorter (90,000 jobs), Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled and was not entitled to benefits under the Act. (R. 27).

II.

If the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the court on judicial review must uphold that decision even if the court might have decided the case differently in the first instance. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."

Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) ; Beardsley v. Colvin , 758 F.3d 834, 836 (7th Cir. 2014). To determine whether substantial evidence exists, the court reviews the record as a whole but does not attempt to substitute its judgment for the ALJ's by reweighing the evidence, resolving material conflicts, or reconsidering facts or the credibility of witnesses. Beardsley , 758 F.3d at 837. "Where conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is entitled to benefits," the court must defer to the Commissioner's resolution of that conflict. Binion v. Chater , 108 F.3d 780, 782 (7th Cir.1997) ; Schloesser v. Berryhill , 870 F.3d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 2017)

But, in the Seventh Circuit, the ALJ also has an obligation to build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the result to afford the claimant meaningful judicial review of the administrative findings. Varga v. Colvin , 794 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 2015) ; O'Connor–Spinner v. Astrue , 627 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir.2010). The court has to be able to trace the path of the ALJ's reasoning from evidence to conclusion. Minnick v. Colvin , 775 F.3d 929, 938 (7th Cir. 2015) ; Jelinek v. Astrue , 662 F.3d 805, 812 (7th Cir. 2011). Even if the court agrees with the ultimate result, the case must be remanded where ALJs fail in their obligations to build that logical bridge. Sarchet v. Chater , 78 F.3d 305, 307 (7th Cir. 1996).

The phrase "logical bridge," seems to have first appeared in Thompson v. Clifford , 408 F.2d 154,167 (D.C. Cir. 1968), where Judge Spottswood Robinson said in an administrative case not involving Social Security that: " ‘Administrative determinations must have a basis in law’ and their force depends heavily on the validity of the reasoning in the logical bridge between statute and regulation." But, "there is no magic in words." Briscoe v. Bank of Commonwealth of Kentucky , 36 U.S. 257, 347, 11 Pet. 257, 9 L.Ed. 709 (1837). As Holmes reminds us "we should think things not words." Holmes, Law and Science and Science and Law , 12 Harv.L.Rev. 443, 460 (1889). Thus, Judge Robinson's use of the phrase did not pretend to create some new method of examination of cases or impose some substantive test or requirement for conclusions in a given case.

All Sarchet did was to utilize the phrase in a Social Security context. It merely required that in that context – as in all others – the ALJ must articulate reasons for his or her conclusions in order that there could be meaningful appellate review. But there was nothing new in Sarchet's use of the phrase in a Social Security context. It merely recognized the hoary principle that ipse dixits alone will not suffice, and that " ‘reasons means something more than conclusions.’ " United States v. White , 888 F.2d 490, 495 (7th Cir.1989). Indeed, the insistence that judges not speak ex cathedra is an ancient one. See e.g., Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino , 376 U.S. 398, 464, 84 S.Ct. 923, 11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964) ; Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp. , 678 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2012) ; E.E.O.C. v. United Airlines , 693 F.3d 760, 764–765 (7th Cir. 2012) ; Sottoriva v. Claps , 617 F.3d 971, 976 (7th Cir. 2010) ; Szmaj v. AT & T , 291 F.3d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 2002) ; Milam v. Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc. , 567 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2009) ("Yet, an unreasoned decision is easier to upset on appeal than a carefully explained one.")(Easterbrook, in chambers); LeBlanc v. BellSouth Sickness & Acc. Disability Benefit Plan , 24 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 1994).

As the court put it in United States v. Eiselt , 988 F.2d 677, 680 (7th Cir. 1993) : " ‘Reasons’ means something more than conclusions--a distinction important not only to the defendant whose future is at stake but also to the appellate process....[W]ithout an adequate understanding of the court...