Laura B. v. Kijakazi
| Decision Date | 01 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 20-cv-03403 |
| Parties | LAURA B., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, [1]Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Laura B. (“Claimant”) moves to reverse or remand the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her claim for disability insurance benefits (“DIBs”). The Commissioner brings a cross-motion for summary judgment seeking to uphold the decision to deny benefits. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c). This Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g). For the reasons that follow, Claimant's motion to reverse the decision of the Commissioner, (Dckt. #18), is denied and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, (Dckt. #23) is granted.
On May 9, 2017, Claimant (then fifty-one years old) filed a disability application alleging disability dating back to June 5, 2015, due to limitations stemming from spinal stenosis, degenerative disk disease, back surgery, arthritis, depression, high blood pressure, and asthma.
(R. 199). Claimant's application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. (R. 20). Claimant filed a timely request for a hearing, which was held via video on February 12, 2019, before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) James D. Wascher. (R. 38-77). Claimant appeared with counsel and offered testimony at the hearing. A vocational expert also offered testimony. On April 24, 2019, the ALJ issued a written decision denying Claimant's application for benefits. (R. 17-37). Claimant filed a timely request for review with the Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied Claimant's request for review on April 13, 2020, (R. 1-6), leaving the ALJ's decision as the final decision of the Commissioner. This action followed.
In order to qualify for disability benefits, a claimant must demonstrate that she is disabled. An individual does so by showing that she cannot “engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(1)(A). Gainful activity is defined as “the kind of work usually done for pay or profit, whether or not a profit is realized.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1572(b).
The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) applies a five-step analysis to disability claims. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520. The SSA first considers whether the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity during the claimed period of disability. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4)(i). At step two, the ALJ determines whether a claimant has one or more medically determinable physical or mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. §404.1521. An impairment “must result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Id. In other words, a physical or mental impairment “must be established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source.” Id.; Shirley R. v. Saul, 1:18-cv-00429-JVB, 2019 WL 5418118, at *2 (N.D.Ind. Oct. 22, 2019). If a claimant establishes that she has one or more physical or mental impairments, the ALJ then determines whether the impairment(s) standing alone, or in combination, are severe and meet the twelve-month duration requirement noted above. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4)(ii).
At step three, the SSA compares the impairment or combination of impairments found at step two to a list of impairments identified in the regulations (“the listings”). The specific criteria that must be met to satisfy a listing are described in Appendix 1 of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. If the claimant's impairments meet or “medically equal” a listing, she is considered to be disabled, and the analysis concludes. If the listing is not met, the analysis proceeds to step four. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4)(iii).
Before addressing the fourth step, the SSA must assess a claimant's residual functional capacity (“RFC”), which defines her exertional and non-exertional capacity to work despite the limitations imposed by her impairments. The SSA then determines at step four whether the claimant is able to engage in any of her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant can do so, she is not disabled. Id. If the claimant cannot undertake her past work, the SSA proceeds to step five to determine whether a substantial number of jobs exist that the claimant can perform in light of her RFC, age, education, and work experience. An individual is not disabled if she can do work that is available under this standard. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a)(4)(v).
Claimant seeks disability benefits due to limitations stemming from spinal stenosis, degenerative disk disease, back surgery, arthritis, depression, high blood pressure, and asthma.
(R. 199). She alleges a disability onset date of June 5, 2015, and her date last insured was March 31, 2019. (R. 21).
Claimant's appeal largely focuses on three impairments and the Court will address each in turn. First, Claimant developed back pain in 2000 and underwent a laminectomy in 2001. (R 657). Although she experienced significant relief following the procedure, her pain later returned. (R. 50). On August 6, 2014, an MRI of Claimant's spine showed, in part, degenerative changes, disk extrusion, and neural foraminal narrowing. (R. 339). She was diagnosed with post-lumbar puncture syndrome and lumbar radiculopathy. (Id.).
Claimant was still experiencing pain on January 28, 2015, despite having undergone physical therapy and repeated injections. (R. 380). Although she presented with weakness in the lower extremities and decreased deep tendon reflexes, she also demonstrated full motor strength in the upper extremities and was walking “without any assistance.” (R. 380-81). Claimant received another MRI of her lumbar spine on August 2, 2018, which also showed degenerative changes, including disk herniation, foraminal narrowing, and evidence of a compressed nerve. (R. 785). Claimant is also morbidly obese and throughout the record her BMI ranged from 38, (R. 788), to more than 46, (R. 590). Treating providers opined that Claimant's weight could exacerbate her back pain. (R. 522, 536, 544, 569, 575).
In addition to her back pain, Claimant has also experienced problems with both knees. She first injured her left knee on July 11, 2016, when “her horse was startled and knocked her over.” (R. 474). An x-ray of the knee from that time showed moderate osteoarthritis. (R. 462). Two years later, on July 27, 2018, Claimant “fell down a hill while carrying a lot of wood.” (R. 994). During the fall, her right “leg went underneath her and she landed on top of it.” (Id.). The next day, Claimant presented to the emergency room with complaints of right knee pain. (Id.). At the time, she reported no fatigue, no joint pain, and no lumbar spine pain. (Id.). She also demonstrated a normal range of motion and normal strength. (R. 996). Claimant reported that she was “unable to bear weight due to pain and [was] using her friend's cane.” (R. 1100). An examination revealed no fractures, but Claimant continued to experience pain, which was “aggravated by walking and golfing.” (R. 794). An August 9, 2018 x-ray of the knee revealed signs of arthritis, osteophyte formation, and subchondral sclerosis. (R. 795).
Claimant's first documented report of left wrist pain is from May 9, 2018. (R. 1013). At a June 27, 2018 orthopedic appointment, however, she informed the treating provider that the pain had been ongoing for eight months. (R. 787). Claimant demonstrated decreased range of motion and decreased strength in her wrist. (R. 801). An x-ray of the hand revealed “minor degenerative changes” and the treating provider diagnosed De Quervain's tenosynovitis[2]in Claimant's left wrist and CMC arthrosis in Claimant's left thumb. (Id.). Therapy and dry needling were recommended. (Id.). Claimant was also fitted for a thumb brace, which she was instructed to use during activities that might cause a “flare-up.” (R. 789-90). The provider set a goal for Claimant to return to unrestricted work activities in four to six weeks. (R. 801). The next month, on July 18, 2018, Claimant reported that she had been regularly wearing the splint and it seemed “to help a lot.” (R. 791). Even so, she rated her pain as an eight out of ten. (Id.). The physical therapist attributed this increased pain to recent physical therapy and dry needling and noted that Claimant could work “as tolerated.” (Id.). Claimant reported “almost complete relief” after the dry needling procedure. (R. 804).
On August 7, 2018, Claimant informed her therapist that she had fallen and aggravated her wrist injury. An exam revealed edema and weakness. (R. 808). On August 27, 2018, Claimant continued to report pain, although she noted that the splint and the dry needling were helpful. (R. 797). Claimant received an injection and no work restrictions were recommended. (R. 799). At a September 6, 2018 appointment, an exam revealed significant increased edema in her wrist since the last injection, as well as tenderness and weakness. (R. 812). No additional exhibits document Claimant's wrist impairment.
Claimant completed a disability report on May 19, 2017. (R. 220). In it, s...
To continue reading
Request your trial