John E. v. Kijakazi
| Decision Date | 09 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 19 CV 1883 |
| Parties | JOHN E., Claimant, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Claimant John E.[1] (“Claimant”) seeks review of the final decision of Respondent Kilolo Kijakazi [2] Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying Claimant's application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act (“Act”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 73.1, the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge for all proceedings, including entry of final judgment. [ECF No. 6]. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C §§ 405(g) and 1383(c), and the parties have filed cross-motions for relief [ECF Nos. 13, 19] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the reasons discussed below, Claimant's Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [ECF No. 13] is denied and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgement [ECF No 19] is granted.
On August 28, 2014, Claimant filed a Title II application for DIB alleging disability beginning on January 18, 2013. (R. 107-109, 236-37). His claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration, after which Claimant requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (R. 85-106, 120-21). On November 2, 2016, Claimant appeared at a hearing before ALJ Diane S. Davis. (R. 76-84). The hearing was continued so that Claimant could obtain representation and a second hearing, at which Claimant testified, was held on March 7, 2017. (R. 40-75). ALJ Davis also heard testimony on that date from impartial vocational expert (“VE”) Edward P. Steffan. (R. 68-74). On May 18, 2017, ALJ Davis denied Claimant's claim for DIB. (R. 24-34).
In finding Claimant not disabled, the ALJ followed the five-step evaluation process required by Social Security regulations for individuals over the age of 18. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). At step one, the ALJ found that Claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the relevant period from January 18, 2013, his alleged onset date, through March 31, 2017, his date of last insured. (R. 26). At step two, the ALJ found that Claimant had a severe impairment or combination of impairments as defined by 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(c). (R. 26). Specifically, Claimant suffered from cardiomyopathy; atrial fibrillation; hypertension; sleep apnea; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); and obesity. (R. 26-27). The ALJ also acknowledged a non-severe complaint, diabetes mellitus, but concluded that it did not cause work-related limitations. (R. 26-27).
At step three, the ALJ determined that Claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. 27). In particular, the ALJ considered listings 3.02, 4.02, and 4.05, but concluded that Claimant did not meet or medically equal the severity of those listings, nor did any “acceptable medical source [mention] findings equivalent in severity to the criteria of any listed impairment, individually or in combination.” (R. 27). Regarding listing 3.02A, the ALJ noted that Claimant's single pulmonary function study in 2014 did not constitute proof of listing level severity, in that the record did not provide evidence of at least three forced expiratory maneuvers performed during the same test session, which the regulations require. (R. 27). Nor did the ALJ see any pulmonary function tests in the medical record beyond the single study in 2014, meaning that even if Claimant had demonstrated listing level scores on that one occasion, there was no evidence of ongoing significant severity. (R. 27). With respect to listing 4.02, the ALJ concluded that Claimant did not meet numerous listing requirements, (R. 27-28), and in particular, had a recent echocardiogram that showed left ventricular ejection fraction of 60%, which is in a normal range, as was Claimant's earlier testing that showed 55%-60%. (R. 28). Finally, the ALJ substantively discussed listing 4.05 but noted that Claimant's arrhythmia did not meet the listing requirements for a number of reasons, including that Claimant had not presented adequate documentary evidence to substantiate those listing requirements. (R. 28). The ALJ also touched on Claimant's obesity but noted that there was no evidence of record that Claimant's obesity contributed to any other severe impairment such that, in combination, those impairments would meet listing level severity. (R. 28).
The ALJ then found Claimant had the RFC, [3] through his date last insured, to:
(R. 28).
Based on this RFC, the ALJ found at step four that Claimant had past relevant work as a construction worker but that work, which was very heavy, exceeded Claimant's residual functional capacity and could no longer be performed. (R. 32). At step five, the ALJ concluded that, considering Claimant's age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity, he is capable of performing other work within the national economy and that those jobs exist in significant numbers. (R. 32-33). Specifically, the VE's testimony, on which the ALJ relied, identified jobs including unskilled light occupations such as office helper, cashier, and cleaner housekeeper that Claimant could perform and that are available in significant numbers in the national economy. (R. 33). The ALJ then found Claimant was not under a disability from January 18, 2013, the alleged onset date, through March 31, 2017, the date last insured. (R. 33).
The Appeals Council granted Claimant's request for review on April 23, 2018 and issued a written decision on June 27, 2018 explaining that Claimant was not entitled to benefits but that Claimant last met the insured requirements of the Social Security Act on June 30, 2017, meaning the hearing decision left an unadjudicated period from April 1, 2017 through May 18, 2017. (R. 9-11). Substantively, however, the Appeals Council adopted the ALJ's “statements regarding the pertinent provisions of the Social Security Act, Social Security Administration Regulations, Social Security Rulings and Acquiescence Rulings, the issues in the case, and the evidentiary facts, as applicable.” (R. 9). Because there were no changes and no new evidence submitted, [4] the Appeals Council also adopted the ALJ's findings or conclusions from January 18, 2013 through March 31, 2017 and the previously unadjudicated period from April 1, 2017 and May 18, 2017. (R. 9-10). The Appeals Council adopted all of the ALJ's findings from Steps 1 through 5 of the sequential evaluation and agreed that Claimant had the RFC (R. 10). Ultimately, the Appeals Council agreed with the ALJ that Claimant's “limitations do not significantly erode the light, unskilled, occupational base” and that there were a significant number of jobs Claimant is capable of performing despite his limitations. (R. 11). A finding of “not disabled, ” the Appeals Council reasoned, was thus appropriate under the Act. (R. 11).
“[B]ecause the Secretary has delegated its authority to make final decisions to the Appeals Council, ” it is the Appeals Council's decision that constitutes the Secretary's final decision for purposes of judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Bauzo v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 917, 921 (7th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). The decision of the Appeals Council is therefore final and reviewable by this Court. Id.
The Court's analysis begins with the well-established principle that federal courts may review only the Secretary's final decisions. White v. Sullivan 965 F.2d 133, 136 (7th Cir. 1992) (citing Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977)). The Appeals Council granted review in this case and, with a few modifications, adopted the ALJ's factual and legal conclusions in their entirety. Therefore, the Court must review both the Council's decision and the ALJ's underlying opinion as modified in timeframe only. 20 C.F.R. § 404.981; see, e.g., Arbogast v. Bowen, 860 F.2d 1400, 1420-03 (7th Cir. 1988) ( ).
The Appeals Council is held to the same standard as the ALJ. Sanford v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 539804, at *3 (N.D Ill. 2018) (citing Bauzo, 803 F.2d at 923). Judicial review is limited to determining whether the ALJ's decision - adopted by the Appeals Council here - is supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards in reaching...
To continue reading
Request your trial