Castile v. Astrue

• Decision Date: 13 August 2010
• Docket Number: No. 09-3917.,09-3917.
• Citation: 617 F.3d 923
• Parties: Barbara J. CASTILE, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

617 F.3d 923

Barbara J. CASTILE, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-3917.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued June 2, 2010.

Decided Aug. 13, 2010.

John P. Young (argued), Young & Young, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Russell J. Cohen (argued), Social Security Administration Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Region V, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and POSNER and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

KANNE, Circuit Judge.

Barbara Castile filed numerous claims under Title II of the Social Security Act in accordance with the process prescribed by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) for obtaining disability insurance and disability widow's benefits. All of her claims were denied at each of the SSA's administrative levels. On subsequent judicial review by the district court, the SSA's denials were affirmed. Castile now appeals her claims for the sixth time, alleging that the district court erred in affirming the denials. We affirm.

I. Background

As part of its review of the SSA's determination, the district court undertook a comprehensive review of Castile's medical and vocational history. Included in this review was the administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) application of the required five-step sequential analysis to Castile's personal history. Because of the exhaustive nature of the district court's review, we adopt this background discussion in its entirety, as contained in Castile v. Astrue, No. 1:09-cv-0023, 2009 WL 3676645 (S.D.Ind. Nov.2, 2009). Nevertheless, we feel it is appropriate and have chosen to set forth herein a summary of the procedural history of this appeal.

On March 20, 2002, Castile filed applications for Social Security disability insurance benefits and disabled widow's benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Castile alleged that her disability began on March 20, 2001, due to a combination of fibromyalgia, arthritis, chronic fatigue, depression, obesity, high blood pressure, anxiety, and sleep apnea, among other maladies. At the date of the onset of her alleged disability Castile was 49 years old, an age classification associated with a “younger individual” under the Social Security Act. Her claims were initially denied on June 21, 2002, and were again denied upon reconsideration on November 13, 2002. Dissatisfied with these determinations, Castile subsequently requested and received an administrative hearing at which she appeared with an attorney and presented testimony. Her claims were denied by the ALJ on June 9, 2003. Castile then requested review by the SSA's Appeals Council. The Council remanded the matter to the ALJ with instructions to obtain additional evidence.

A supplemental hearing was convened on March 3, 2006. An exhaustive amount of evidence was presented, including additional medical records, medical expert testimony, and vocational expert testimony. Castile was again represented by counsel. In conducting the five-step sequential analysis to determine disability as required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920, the ALJ found that Castile had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of her disability (step one); Castile suffered from the “severe” impairments of hypertension, sleep apnea, obesity, fibromyalgia, and depression, but Castile's chronic fatigue syndrome was not severe (step two); and that none of Castile's impairments, either alone or in combination, qualified as a listed impairment (step three). The ALJ then examined Castile's residual functioning capacity and concluded that she could perform her past relevant work as an order clerk (step four). Because the ALJ determined Castile was not disabled at step four, he was not required to and did not proceed to step five.

On February 12, 2007, the ALJ, acting on behalf of the SSA's Commissioner, again denied Castile's applications. The ALJ concluded that Castile was not disabled as the meaning of that term is defined under the Social Security Act because her impairments did not meet or equal any listed impairment, and she remained capable of performing her past relevant work as an order clerk. The Council declined Castile's request for further review, thereby making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.

On January 8, 2009, Castile filed a civil action in the district court seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's decision. On November 2, 2009, the district court found that the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence and issued an Entry on Judicial Review and Final Judgment affirming the Commissioner's final decision.

II. Analysis

On appeal, Castile presents arguments identical to those addressed by the district court. Castile argues again that the ALJ erred at step two of the evaluation by determining that her chronic fatigue syndrome was not “severe.” Castile next argues that the ALJ failed to give sufficient weight to the effect of her obesity on her ability to work. Lastly, Castile argues that the ALJ's credibility finding was improperly articulated and unreasonable. We take each argument in turn.

A. Standard of Review

We review de novo the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner's final decision Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1176 (7th Cir.2001), and will uphold the Commissioner's decision so long as the ALJ applied the correct legal standard and substantial evidence supported the decision see Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 841 (7th Cir.2007); Steele v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936, 940 (7th Cir.2002). Substantial evidence is “ ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ ” Skinner, 478 F.3d at 841 ( quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971)). “When reviewing for substantial evidence, we do not displace the ALJ's judgment by reconsidering facts or evidence or making credibility determinations.” Id.

We note that on appeal Castile primarily addresses the ALJ's decision without discussing the district court's analysis of that decision. While not legally flawed, we have previously indicated that such an approach is a “risky tactic,” especially in a case such as this where the district court judge issued a “thorough and persuasive opinion.” White v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir.2005).

B. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Castile argues that the ALJ erred by finding that her alleged chronic fatigue syndrome was not a severe impairment. She contends that her claimed chronic fatigue syndrome by itself renders her incapable of performing work.

Procedurally, the ALJ is required to determine at step two of the sequential analysis whether the claimant in fact has an impairment or combination of impairments that is “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). The burden, however, is on the claimant to prove that the impairment is severe. Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 885-86 (7th Cir.2001). A severe impairment is an impairment or combination of impairments that “significantly limits [one's] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c); cf. 404.1521(a). As long as the ALJ determines that the claimant has one severe impairment, the ALJ will proceed to the remaining steps of the evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1523; see also Golembiewski v. Barnhart, 322 F.3d 912, 918 (7th Cir.2003) (“Having found that one or more of [appellant's] impairments was ‘severe,’ the ALJ needed to consider the aggregate effect of the entire constellation of ailments-including those impairments that in isolation are not severe.”). Therefore, the step two determination of severity is “merely a threshold requirement.” Hickman v. Apfel, 187 F.3d 683, 688 (7th Cir.1999).

Although the ALJ found that Castile has numerous severe impairments, his findings also indicated that Castile's chronic fatigue syndrome was not severe because it did not more than minimally affect her ability to perform basic sedentary work activities. In addition, the ALJ noted that the record was devoid of any medical laboratory test results to support her claim. The ALJ also observed that although Castile had complained of chronic fatigue syndrome since 1997, she continued working, and she apparently felt well enough to apply for work as late as January 2002. Finally, the ALJ noted that there were no records whatsoever of any physical complaints since August 2003.

We agree with the district court that there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ's conclusion. Regardless, this particular determination is of no consequence with respect to the outcome of the case. Because the ALJ recognized numerous other severe impairments, he was obligated to proceed with the evaluation process. See Golembiewski v. Barnhart, 322 F.3d 912, 918 (7th Cir.2003) (“Having found that one or more of [appellant's] impairments was ‘severe,’ the ALJ needed to consider the aggregate effect of the entire constellation of ailments.”). Accordingly, in step four of the evaluation, the ALJ properly considered Castile's chronic fatigue syndrome along with her other severe and non-severe impairments in determining whether Castile could perform her past work.

Castile further contends that her chronic fatigue syndrome, in combination with her other impairments, rendered her disabled because such impairments cause a level of absenteeism that makes it impossible for her to perform acceptable work. Therefore, Castile argues, the ALJ erred as a matter of law and fact because the ALJ improperly evaluated the limiting effects of her chronic fatigue syndrome. It is Castile, however, who bears the burden of proving that she is disabled, and she failed to present any medical evidence linking her chronic fatigue syndrome to the unacceptable level of absenteeism she alleges. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a). Contrary to her claims,...