Jones v. Colvin
| Decision Date | 08 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 09 C 7645,09 C 7645 |
| Parties | JAMES V. JONES, Plaintiff-Claimant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Jeffrey T. Gilbert
Magistrate Judge
Claimant James V. Jones ("Claimant") brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking reversal or remand of the decision by Respondent Carolyn W. Colvin,1 Acting Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"), denying Claimant's application for supplemental security income. This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment [Dkt.##53,59].
Claimant argues that Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") decision denying his application for supplemental security income should be reversed or, alternatively, should be vacated and remanded to the Social Security Administration ("SSA") for further proceedings. In support of his motion for summary judgment, Claimant raises the following issues: (1) whether the ALJ's determination at step two was erroneous because he failed to assess the combined effect of Claimant's impairments; (2) whether the ALJ's determination at step three concerningwhether Claimant's impairments meet or medically equal a listed impairment or combination of impairments was erroneous; (3) whether the ALJ's residual functional capacity ("RFC") determination was erroneous; (4) whether the ALJ's credibility determination was patently wrong; (5) whether the ALJ erred by failing to conduct a § 404.1535 analysis; and (6) whether the ALJ's step five determination was erroneous.
For the reasons discussed herein, Claimant's motion for summary judgment [Dkt.#53] is denied, and the Commissioner's cross-motion [Dkt.#59] is granted, affirming the Commissioner's decision denying Claimant's application for supplemental security income
On April 25, 2007, Claimant filed his application for supplemental security income, alleging a disability onset date beginning July 23, 1999. R.9. The SSA initially denied the application on June 6, 2007 and upon reconsideration on October 7, 2007. R.9. Thereafter, Claimant filed a written request for a hearing on December 6, 2007. R.9. Claimant appeared and testified at a hearing on July 29, 2009 and was represented by counsel at the hearing. R.9. Vocational expert James Breen and medical expert Mark Oberlander Ph.D. also testified at the hearing. R.9.
On September 1, 2009, the ALJ issued his decision finding that Claimant has not been under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act since April 25, 2007, the date his application for supplemental security income was filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). R.19. Specifically, the ALJ found that Claimant has severe impairments, including status post-surgical repair right ankle, chronic pancreatitis, depressive disorder, anti-social personality disorder, andpolysubstance abuse. R.11 The ALJ, however, concluded that Claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals any of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926). R.11. The ALJ then concluded that Claimant has "the residual functional capacity to perform unskilled light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b), with limitations: The claimant can lift a maximum of 20 pounds occasionally and lift and carry up to 10 pounds frequently, stand and/or walk about 6 hours in a normal 8-hour workday, sit about 6 hours in a normal 8-hour workday, and push and/or pull to include operation of hand and/or foot controls as restricted by the limitations on carrying/lifting and restricted by no use of his right lower extremity subject to postural limitations of only occasionally climbing ramps or stairs, and of never climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; an environmental limitation of avoiding concentrated exposure to hazards (machinert [sic], heights, etc.); and limitations imposed by the claimant's mental impairments such that he can perform only simple, repetitive tasks, that he not be required to do [sic] participate in group projects, and that he have occasional contact with supervisors, co-workers, and the general public." R.14.
The ALJ determined that Claimant does not have any past relevant work. R.18. The ALJ, however, concluded that "considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, the claimant is capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy." R.19. The ALJ ultimately concluded that Claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since April 25, 2007. R.19.
On September 29, 2009, Claimant filed a request with the Appeals Council for review of the ALJ's decision. R.4-5. The Appeals Council denied Claimant's request for review on November 23, 2009, making the ALJ's determination the final decision of the Commissioner. R.1-3. Claimant seeks review in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 405(g).
At the time of the hearing, Claimant was 40 years old and was living with his girlfriend. R.24. He is single and has two minor children. R.24. He attended some high school but stopped going when he was a junior and never obtained his GED. R.33-34. He testified that he has difficulty reading. R.34. Claimant does not have any past relevant work. R.18. Claimant testified that he worked some side jobs as a mechanic for cash payments but that he no longer is working because he does not "have the patience" to continue those jobs. R.28. Claimant testified that he currently has no income and that he has a Link card. R.25.
Claimant testified that he continues to have problems with his pancreas and that he recently was hospitalized. R.25. Claimant also testified that he continues to have pain in his right ankle and leg as a result of a previous accident in 1984. R.29-30, 38. He testified that he has difficulty walking on uneven surfaces. R.30. Claimant testified that he can lift two gallons of milk and that he could pick them up from the floor to the table. R.37-38.
Claimant testified that he can take clothes out of the washer and put them in the dryer. R.30. He testified that he can clear the table. R.30. However, he stated that someone else prepares his meals. R. 31-32. He does not wash dishes, vacuum or mow the law. R.30-31.
Claimant testified that he has difficulty sleeping and that he wakes up feeling tired. R.31, 35. He does not interact much with others. R.32. Claimant stated that he preferred to stay by himself in the house. R.33. Claimant testified that he enjoyed playing with radios, watching television and listening to music. R.34. He does not go to the movies. R.35.
Claimant testified that he meets with his psychiatrist and his therapist every two months. R.28-29. Claimant testified that he does not attend family functions very often because he feels that his family does not want him there. R.35. Claimant testified that he does not like being in a crowd because he thinks that people will talk about him. R.32. Claimant also testified that he has problems taking orders from supervisors and that he does not like it when someone stands over his shoulder while he is working. R.32-33.
Vocational expert ("VE") James Breen testified that Claimant has no past relevant work. R.58. Based on a hypothetical posed by the ALJ which assumed a 40-year-old individual with limited education, with no past work experience, with no exertional limitations, and with non-exertional limitations limited to simple, repetitive, routine duties in a work environment that would have limited contact with co-workers, the public and no repetitive contact with supervisors and also would not require working in a group, the VE testified that there are jobs that would fit within those limitations. R.58. The VE testified that there would be unskilled, medium and light level jobs. R.58-59. The ALJ posed another hypothetical assuming that same individual with the with a further restriction that would limit the individual to less than six hours of standing or walking in an eight hour-day, the VE testified that there are unskilled, sedentary jobs that are available in the workforce pursuant to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. R.60.
Dr. Mark Oberlander testified as an impartial medical expert. R.39. Dr. Oberlander did not examine Claimant but testified that there was sufficient evidence in the record (which he reviewed) for him to offer an opinion on Claimant's mental impairments. R.40. Dr. Oberlander testified that the medical evidence indicated a presence of an affective disorder under listing 12.04, a personality disorder under 12.08, and psychiatric symptomotology under listing 12.09 for substance use and abuse. R.40-41.
Dr. Oberlander testified that based on the combination of listings 12.04, 12.08 and 12.09, the medical evidence suggested that Claimant's functional limitation to engage in activities of daily living is mild, to maintain social functioning is moderate, and to maintain concentration, persistence and pace is marked when alcohol use is active and is moderate when alcohol use is not a contributing factor. R.45. Dr. Oberlander testified that there was no evidence of any episodes of decompensation or deterioration of extended duration and concluded that the C-criteria do not apply in this case. R.45. Dr. Oberlander opined that Claimant "retains the mental capacity to engage in simple, repetitive, routine work activities with the only allowances needing to be taken into consideration is that the work environment not have him in any group projects with some minimal allowance for less than extensive contact with co-workers, the public, and any extensive repetitive...
To continue reading
Request your trial