Murphy v. Berryhill
Decision Date | 11 March 2019 |
Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 1:18cv118 |
Parties | REBECCA SUE MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the court for judicial review of a final decision of the defendant Commissioner of Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB), as provided for in the Social Security Act. Section 205(g) of the Act provides, inter alia, It also provides, "[t]he findings of the [Commissioner] as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. . . ." 42 U.S.C. §405(g).
The law provides that an applicant for DIB must establish an "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous period of no less than 12 months. . . ." 42 U.S.C. §416(i)(1); 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(1)(A). A physical or mental impairment is "an impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(3). It is not enough for a plaintiff to establish that an impairment exists. It must be shown that the impairment is severe enough to preclude the plaintiff from engaging in substantial gainful activity. Gotshaw v. Ribicoff, 307 F.2d 840 (7th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 945 (1963); Garcia v. Califano, 463 F.Supp. 1098 (N.D.Ill. 1979). It is well established that the burden of proving entitlement to disability insurance benefits is on the plaintiff. See Jeralds v. Richardson, 445 F.2d 36 (7th Cir. 1971); Kutchman v. Cohen, 425 F.2d 20 (7th Cir. 1970).
Given the foregoing framework, "[t]he question before [this court] is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the [Commissioner's] findings." Garfield v. Schweiker, 732 F.2d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 1984) citing Whitney v. Schweiker, 695 F.2d 784, 786 (7th Cir. 1982); 42 U.S.C. §405(g). " Rhoderick v. Heckler, 737 F.2d 714, 715 (7th Cir. 1984) quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1410, 1427 (1971); see Allen v. Weinberger, 552 F.2d 781, 784 (7th Cir. 1977). "If the record contains such support [it] must [be] affirmed, 42 U.S.C. §405(g), unless there has been an error of law." Garfield, supra at 607; see also Schnoll v. Harris, 636 F.2d 1146, 1150 (7th Cir. 1980).
In the present matter, after consideration of the entire record, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") made the following findings:
(Tr. 13- 22 ).
Based upon these findings, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not entitled to disability insurance benefits. The ALJ's decision became the final agency decision when the Appeals Council denied review. This appeal followed.
Plaintiff filed her opening brief on October 25, 2018. On January 23, 2019, the defendant filed a memorandum in support of the Commissioner's decision, to which Plaintiff replied on January 31, 2019. Upon full review of the record in this cause, this court is of the view that the ALJ's decision should be remanded.
A five step test has been established to determine whether a claimant is disabled. See Singleton v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 710, 711 (7th Cir. 1988); Bowen v. Yuckert, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 2290-91 (1987). The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has summarized that test as follows:
The following steps are addressed in order: (1) Is the claimant presently unemployed? (2) Is the claimant's impairment "severe"? (3) Does the impairment meet or exceed one of a list of specific impairments? (4) Is the claimant unable to perform his or her former occupation? (5) Is the claimant unable to perform any other work within the economy? An affirmative answer leads either to the next step or, on steps 3 and 5, to a finding that the claimant is disabled. A negative answer at any point, other than step 3, stops the inquiry and leads to a determination that the claimant is not disabled.
Nelson v. Bowen, 855 F.2d 503, 504 n.2 (7th Cir. 1988); Zalewski v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 160, 162 n.2 (7th Cir. 1985); accord Halvorsen v. Heckler, 743 F.2d 1221 (7th Cir. 1984). From the nature of the ALJ's decision to deny benefits, it is clear that Step 5 was the determinative inquiry.
Plaintiff was born on September 16, 1960 and was 56 years-old on the date that the ALJ issued her decision. In March 2011, Plaintiff presented for treatment of knee pain and lower extremity swelling. (AR 724.) Examination revealed lower extremity edema. Id. Doctors prescribed the main medication methadone and the muscle relaxant Flexeril. Id. In April 2011, doctors observed that Plaintiff was shaking, gritting her teeth, was tearful, and presented with a racing heart. (AR 722.) Doctors prescribed the antidepressant Lexapro and the anti-anxiety medication Xanax. Id. She developed increasingly severe back pain in May 2011. (AR 720.) Her depression persisted in mid-2011 and doctors prescribed the antidepressant Elavil. (AR 711.) In November 2011, she presented with chest pain, dyspnea on exertion, and tachycardia. (AR 645.) An echocardiogram (ECG) reflected concentric left ventricular hypertrophy with impaired diastolic function. (AR 647.) Examination in December 2011 confirmed lower extremity edema. (AR 715.) A December 2011 pulmonary function test demonstrated decreased mid-expiratory flows and decreased diffusion capacity which could have been a component of anatomic emphysema. (AR 628.)
In January 2012, doctors diagnosed supraventricular tachycardia after Plaintiff presented with a rapid heart rate. (AR 631.) An ECG suggested possible left ventricular enlargement. (AR 639.) Examination in March 2012 revealed tenderness to palpation over the lumbar spine. (AR 712.) Doctors prescribed the narcotic pain medication Vicoprofen, for Plaintiff had recently tapered off of methadone. (AR 712.) A July 2012 MRI of the lumbar spine confirmed disc bulge with facet arthropathy and bilateral foraminal narrowing at L3-L4, disc bulge with foraminal narrowing at L4-L5, and facet arthropathy at L5-S1. (AR 652.) A July 2012 x-ray of the knees reflected marked medial compartmental joint space narrowing and tricompartmental osteophytes.(AR 666.) Plaintiff presented at a neurological clinic in October 2012 for treatment of severe headaches. (AR 787.) She suffered incapacitating headaches that lasted for two-to-three days, up to three occasions each month. Id. She attempted to lie down when the headaches occurred but the pain often interrupted her sleep. Id. Additionally, the headaches produced impaired concentration and decreased appetite. Id. Doctors diagnosed migraine headache with aura and prescribed the migraine headache medication Topamax. (AR 788.) Doctors increased her dosage of Xanax in April 2015, for she continued to suffer progressive anxiety. (AR 897.) Plaintiff developed left shoulder...
To continue reading
Request your trial