Nelson v. Berryhill, 1:16-cv-03381-TAB-TWP

• Decision Date: 14 November 2017
• Docket Number: No. 1:16-cv-03381-TAB-TWP,1:16-cv-03381-TAB-TWP
• Parties: THERESE NELSON, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana

THERESE NELSON, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant.

No. 1:16-cv-03381-TAB-TWP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

November 14, 2017

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Theresa B. Nelson appeals the Commissioner's denial of her application for supplemental security income. Nelson, due to her age of fifty-five, is in the "advanced age" category for purposes of Social Security benefits. She completed high school and some college and has worked as a waitress, lab technician, and bill collector. Over the years, Nelson has experienced severe deterioration in her knee joints, which has led to "episodes of going stiff and then shaking all over." [Filing No. 16-8, at ECF p. 53, R. at 438-39.] Based upon these joint-mobility issues, Nelson sought Social Security Disability benefits. Nelson argues that the Administrative Law Judge erred at step four by giving great weight to testimony from Dr. Besen. Nelson asserts that Dr. Beson's testimony is not substantial evidence because it conflicted with other medical sources and did not allow the ALJ to establish the necessary logical bridge between the evidence and his decision. However, the Court finds the ALJ did not err by relying on Dr. Besen's expert opinion, and the ALJ developed a logical bridge between the evidence and his conclusions. Therefore, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed.

II. Background

Nelson filed an application for supplemental security income, alleging disability beginning on September 28, 2013. The agency denied the claim initially and upon review. As a result of Nelson's request, a hearing was held and Nelson testified regarding her mobility issues, after which the ALJ found Nelson was not disabled.

At step one, the ALJ determined that Nelson had not engaged in substantial gainful employment since the alleged disability onset. At step two, the ALJ found that Nelson's severe impairments were seizure disorder, major dysfunction of bilateral knees, and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. At step three of the evaluation, the ALJ concluded that Nelson's impairments did not meet or medically equal any of the listed impairments. At step four, the ALJ concluded Nelson had the residual functional capacity to perform light work but cannot climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds, must avoid concentrated exposure to unprotected heights, and must avoid the operation of commercial vehicles. Relying on the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ then found that Nelson was capable of performing substantial gainful activity such as past relevant work as a bill collector and lab technician. Thus, the ALJ determined Nelson was not disabled.

III. Discussion

The Court's role is limited, and it is not permitted to reweigh the facts or evidence. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413 (7th Cir. 2008). The Court must affirm the ALJ's decision when it is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Summers v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 523, 526 (7th Cir. 2017). The decision must reflect that the ALJ built a "logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion." Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 935 (7thCir. 2015). The ALJ's decision will lack sufficient evidentiary support and require remand if it is clear that the ALJ "cherry-picked" the record to support a finding of non-disability. Wilson v. Colvin, 48 F. Supp. 3d 1140, 1147 (N.D. Ill. 2014).

Nelson argues the ALJ's decision was not based upon substantial evidence because it relied on the opinion of evaluating medical expert Dr. Besen. Nelson claims that Dr. Besen's opinion was not based upon the entire medical record and was inconsistent with the other expert medical testimony. Nelson asserts that Dr. Besen's opinion could not be based upon substantial evidence because Dr. Besen was ignorant of critical x-ray evidence. Furthermore, Nelson contends Dr. Besen's opinion was inconsistent with both examining and non-examining medical sources, including the testimony of examining physician Dr. Thomas. Therefore, Nelson argues the ALJ could not have developed a logical bridge between the evidence and his conclusion. Contrary to these arguments, the Court finds that the ALJ adequately supported his reliance on Dr. Besen.

Nelson argues that the ALJ's reliance on Dr. Besen's testimony constituted reversible error because the hearing transcript shows that, at the time of the hearing, Dr. Besen was unaware of crucial evidence in Nelson's file. Specifically, Nelson claims that Dr. Besen's testimony failed to adequately address the evidence related to the damage and deterioration in her knees, and her difficulty in standing and walking without a cane or walker. [Filing No. 21, at ECF p. 12.] Nelson argues that despite evidence in the record that medical scans showed severe joint damage, Dr. Besen's testimony suggested that he did not know whether x-rays had been performed and assumed that any results would have shown minimal findings. [Id.] Dr. Besen concluded that Nelson was "minimally limited" in her ability to perform normal functions. [Filing No. 16-2, at ECF p. 54, R. at p. 53.] However, Nelson states that clinical examination ofher knees showed several indications of functional problems, which would cause her difficulty with standing and walking.

The ALJ gave great weight to Dr. Besen's opinion for two reasons. First, Dr. Besen's conclusions were based upon a more comprehensive review of the medical record than any of the other expert witnesses, and he offered a thorough analysis of the medical evidence based upon his medical expertise. Second, Dr. Besen's conclusions were consistent with the other examining and evaluating medical experts. For example, the ALJ also gave significant weight to the opinion of examining expert Dr. Gilpatrick, who also concluded that Nelson was capable of performing normal movements. Further, the ALJ developed a logical and accurate bridge between the evidence and his conclusion based upon not only Dr. Besen's comprehensive review of the entire medical record [Filing No. 16-2, at ECF p....