Jennifer F. v. Kijakazi
| Docket Number | 20 C 5365 |
| Decision Date | 02 August 2022 |
| Parties | JENNIFER F.,[1] Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
The plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act (“Act”). 42 U.S.C §§416(I), 423, over eight years ago in May of 2014. (Administrative Record (R.) 178-179). She claimed that she became disabled as of April 1, 2010, and was unable to work due to degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis bulging/herniated disc, spondylitis, bone spurs, facet syndrome, myofascial pain syndrome, migraines depression/anxiety/PTSD. (R. 226). Over the next three years, plaintiff's application was denied at every level of administrative review: initial, reconsideration, administrative law judge (ALJ), and appeals council. She filed suit in federal court and won a remand to the administrative level where her application was denied again. The plaintiff filed suit again under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on September 10, 2020, and the case was fully briefed as of September 22, 2021. [Dkt. #25]. Seven months later, the Executive Committee transferred the case to me as I was the magistrate judge who remanded the matter four years earlier. [Dkt. # 27]. It is the ALJ 's most recent decision - from July 26, 2019 - that is before the court for review. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.955; 404.981. The plaintiff asks the court to reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision, while the Commissioner seeks an order affirming the decision.
Given how long the parties have been waiting since briefing this matter, not to mention the age of the case, we will dispense with a recitation of the medical record, focusing instead on the medical evidence that is pertinent to the plaintiff's arguments for remanding the ALJ's decision denying her disability benefits for a second time. After a second administrative hearing - at which plaintiff, represented by counsel, and a medical expert and a vocational expert testified - the ALJ again determined plaintiff was not disabled. The ALJ found that plaintiff had two severe impairments: degenerative disc disease and status post spinal fusion surgery. (R. 878). The ALJ found that plaintiff's mental impairment - mood disorder - no more than a mild limitation in the areas of concentrating, persisting, and maintaining pace and adapting or managing herself, and so was a non-severe impairment. (R. 879). The ALJ then determined that none of plaintiff's impairments, singly or in combination, amounted to a condition that met or equaled an impairment assumed to be disabling in the Commissioner's listings, focusing on listing 1.04. (R. 880-81).
The ALJ then determined that plaintiff could perform sedentary work which is performed mostly while sitting and involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567. In addition, the ALJ found that plaintiff could occasionally climb ramps and stairs, but could never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; she could occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl and occasionally be exposed to vibrations and hazards, such as moving machinery, or unprotected heights. (R. 881). The ALJ went on to summarize plaintiff's allegations about the limiting effects of her impairments (R. 881) and reviewed the medical record. (R. 881-83). The ALJ concluded that plaintiff's “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 the reasons explained in this decision.” (R. 883). In so finding, the ALJ noted objective studies showing mostly mild degenerative changes, successful surgery and mostly effective treatment, and plaintiff's activities. (R. 883-84).
The ALJ gave the opinions from the DDS reviewing physicians that plaintiff could perform light work “some weight,” but found they were not sufficiently restrictive and somewhat outdated. Instead, the ALJ felt the medical record better supported the opinion of Dr. Munoz, the medical expert who testified that the hearing and thought plaintiff was limited to sedentary work. (R. 884). Dr. Munoz reviewed the medical evidence and concluded plaintiff was restricted to sedentary work, but was not disabled. (R. 917). He though she could sit six hours in a workday, and stand and walk occasionally. (R. 921, 922). The doctor explained that plaintiff's surgery was successful and there were no complications. He said the majority of patients who go through such surgery have a capacity reduced to sedentary work. Dr. Munoz found nothing in the record that would restrict plaintiff from working entirely. (R. 918). He said he couldn't say that the pain plaintiff was expressing correlated with the physical findings. (R. 919). The ALJ gave Dr. Munoz's opinion “great weight” as supported by the record, which the doctor reviewed in its entirety. (R. 884). The ALJ rejected the opinions of plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Ghani, due to inherent inconsistencies and the minimal medical record. (R. 884).
Relying on the testimony of the vocational expert, the ALJ determined that, while plaintiff could no longer perform her past work as administrative assistant, she could still perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Examples of such work were: microfilming document preparer (Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) 249.587-018; 31,055 jobs in the national economy), pari-mutuel ticket checker (DOT 219.587-010, 16,261 jobs), and call out operator (DOT 237.367-014, 14,294). (R. 886). Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff was not disabled and not entitled to Disability Insurance Benefits. (R. 886-87).
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 (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, Biestek v. Berryhill, __ U.S. __, __, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019), 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).
The substantial evidence standard is a low hurdle to negotiate. Biestek, 139 S.Ct. at 1154; Karr v. Saul, 989 F.3d 508, 511 (7th Cir. 2021). If reasonable minds could differ, the court must defer to the ALJ's weighing of the evidence. Zoch v. Saul, 981 F.3d 597, 602 (7th Cir. 2020). But, in the Seventh Circuit, at least thus far, the ALJ also has an obligation to build what the court has called 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 if the ALJ fails in his or her obligation to build that “logical bridge.” As Sarchet v. Chater, 78 F.3d 305, 307 (7th Cir. 1996) put it: “we cannot uphold a decision by an administrative agency, any more than we can uphold a decision by a district court, if, while there is enough evidence in the record to support the decision, the reasons given by the trier of fact do not build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the result.”[2] But see, e.g., Riley v. City of Kokomo, 909 F.3d 182, 188 (7th Cir. 2018)(“But we need not address either of those issues here because, even if [plaintiff] were correct on both counts, we may affirm on any basis appearing in the record...”); Steimel v. Wernert, 823 F.3d 902, 917 (7th Cir. 2016)(“We have serious reservations about this decision, which strikes us as too sweeping.
Nonetheless, we may affirm on any basis that fairly appears in the record.”); Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, 679 F.3d 957, 965 (7th Cir. 2012)(“[District court] did not properly allocate the burden of proof on the causation element between the parties, ... No matter, because we may affirm on any basis that appears in the record.”).
Of course, this is a subjective standard: one reader's Mackinac Bridge is another's rickety rope and rotting wood nightmare. But no matter what one's view of the “logical bridge” requirement, no one suggests that the “accurate and logical bridge” must be the equivalent of the Point Neuf. The subjectivity of the requirement makes it difficult for ALJs hoping to write acceptable decisions that stand up to judicial scrutiny when challenged, or when upheld at the district court level and challenged again before the Seventh Circuit.
But, at the same time, the Seventh Circuit has also called the “logical bridge” requirement “lax.” Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial