Delaney v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

OPINION: Defendant Commissioner's Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 16 ) is ALLOWED, Plaintiff Delaney's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 13 ) is DENIED, and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. All pending motions are denied as moot. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION.) Entered by Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins on 6/13/2018. (GL, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 13 June, 2018 10:33:05 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MEGAN MARIE DELANEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 17-cv-3086

OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Plaintiff Megan Marie Delaney appeals from the denial of her
application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under
Title II and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the
Social Security Act (collectively Disability Benefits). 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i),
423, 1381a and 1382c. This appeal is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
405(g) and 1383(c). Delaney filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
(d/e 13). The Defendant Commissioner filed a Motion for Summary
Affirmance (d/e 16). The parties consented to proceed before this Court.
Consent to the Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate and
Reference Order entered May 18, 2017 (d/e 9). For the reasons set forth
below, the decision of the Defendant Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 32

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Delaney was born November 3, 1986. She completed about two
years of college. She previously worked as a school bus monitor, general
farm worker, and food service manager. She last worked in June 2012 at a
Dollar General store as a cashier. Delaney suffers from type 1 insulin
dependent diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, diabetic retinopathy, affective
disorder, and anxiety. Certified Transcript of Proceedings before the Social
Security Administration (d/e 11) (R.), 17, 28, 44, 705.
On April 28, 2012, Delaney went to the emergency room at Memorial
Hospital in Taylorville, Illinois (Taylorville Hospital). Delaney had multiple
skin infections. The emergency room physician noted, “She states that her
sugars have been 200+ recently and she is not really following a diet or
doing what she is supposed to do although she does seem to know the
risks.” The physician “spent a significant amount of time discussing the
risks of diabetes and encouraging her to follow the appropriate diet.”
R. 551. The emergency room physician prescribed antibiotics for her
infections, encouraged her to follow an appropriate diabetic regimen, and
discharged her. R. 552.
On May 16, 2012 Delaney was admitted to St. John’s Hospital in
Springfield, Illinois (St. John’s). Delaney did not know the insulin dose
Page 2 of 32

prescribed to her. Over the next two days, the doctors adjusted her insulin
dose until she had a consistent blood sugar reading under 200 with not low
blood sugar events. She was discharged on May 19, 2012. R. 614-15.
On May 29, 2012, Delaney went to St. John’s, but left against medical
advice. R. 640. On May 30, 2012, Delaney went to the emergency room
at Taylorville Hospital with low blood sugar. She was given Glucagon and
transferred to St. John’s Hospital for observation and continued monitoring
of her blood sugar. R. 544. She was admitted to St. John’s and
discharged on June 2, 2012 with a diabetic diet and a prescription for
insulin. R. 640.
On June 22, 2012, Delaney went to the emergency room at
Taylorville Hospital with low blood sugar. Her diabetes was poorly
controlled. She had not eaten that day and collapsed. She was given
dextrose and became awake and alert. R. 543.
On January 25, 2013, Delaney saw Dr. Zulfiqar Hashim, M.D., for
diabetic neuropathy. R. 833-35. Delaney reported “pins and needle”
sensations in her lower extremities. On examination, Delaney was
negative for dizziness, extremity weakness, headache, numbness in
extremities, and tremors. Delaney also showed no loss of light touch and

Page 3 of 32

vibration sensation in her lower extremities. R. 835. Dr. Hashim
prescribed Neurontin (gabapentin). R. 833.
On May 17, 2013, Delaney saw Dr. Madhumita Banga, M.D., for a
follow up on her diabetes. R. 830-32. Her diabetes was uncontrolled at the
time. The Neurontin was not fully controlling her neuropathy. Dr. Banga
advised her that strict glycemic control was necessary for neuropathy pain
control. R. 830.
On July 20, 2013, Delaney went to America’s Best Contacts &
Eyeglasses for an eye examination. R. 605-06. Her corrected visual acuity
was 20/40 in the right eye and 20/70 in the left. The optometrist referred
Delaney to a retina specialist. R. 606.
On September 27, 2013, Delaney saw Dr. Banga for her diabetes. R.
826-29. Her diabetes was uncontrolled. Dr. Banga increased her insulin
dosages. R. 826.
On December 4, 2013, Delaney saw a retina specialist at the
Washington University School of Medicine Ophthalmology and Visual
Sciences Department. She reported “smudgy vision with floating lines
since September 2013. Her corrected vision was 20/40 in the right and
20/60 in the left. R. 688. On December 12, 2013, ophthalmologist Dr. Chin
Yee, M.D., performed a Panretinal Photocoagulation (PRP) on Delaney to
Page 4 of 32

limit the effects of diabetic retinopathy. The procedure involved burning
parts of the retina with lasers. R. 696. Dr. Yee repeated the PRP
procedure on December 19, 2013 and January 2, 2014. R. 694-95.
On February 20, 2014, Delaney returned to Washington University for
intravitreal injections. At that time, her corrected visual acuity was 20/50 in
the right eye and 20/60 in the left. R. 693. On March 26, 2014, Delaney
went to Washington University for intravitreal injections. At that time, her
corrected visual acuity was 20/50 in the right eye and 20/60 in the left. R.
692.
On April 9, 2014, Delaney saw state agency physician Dr. Vittal
Chapa, M.D., for a consultative examination. R. 698-701. Dr. Chapa noted
that Delaney had documented diabetic retinopathy in both eyes. Delaney’s
corrected visual acuity was 20/50 in the right eye with pinhole acuity of
20/70, and 20/70 in the left eye with pinhole acuity of 20/70. Her visual
fields were normal on gross confrontation. R. 698.
On April 10, 2014, Delaney saw state agency psychologist Dr.
Dolores Trello, Psy.D., for a mental status examination. R. 704-08.
Delaney reported that she had social anxiety all of her life. She said she
felt anxious around people. Delaney also reported that she was
depressed. She said she went through depression after her miscarriage in
Page 5 of 32

June 2013. She reported having trouble sleeping. She took Benadryl overthe-counter to help her sleep, but did not take any other medication for her
mental condition. R. 705.
Delaney reported that she had two friends and a boyfriend. She said
that she went to a lake often and liked to sit around a fire. She said that
she liked to draw and make jewelry. She said she depended on her
parents for emotional support. Delaney said that she could cook, do
laundry, and perform household chores. She could drive. R. 706.
Dr. Trello noted that Delaney’s concentration was good. Her
immediate, recent, and remote memory was intact. Dr. Trello assessed
major depressive disorder, recurrent of moderate severity, social anxiety,
panic attacks without agoraphobia, and generalized anxiety disorder. R.
707.
On May 19, 2014, Delaney saw state agency optometrist Dr. Chelsey
Moore, O.D., for a consultative eye examination. R. 711-15. She reported
receiving injections in her eyes to help with the diabetic macular edema.
She reported that she was forced to quit work due to vision decline. R.
711. On examination, Delaney had corrected visual acuity of 20/30 in the
right eye and 20/40 in the left, with no pinhole improvement. R. 712.
Delaney’s confrontation visual fields were full. She had no cataracts. The
Page 6 of 32

fundoscopic examination showed scars on the retina from the PRP
treatments. Visual field testing showed mild superior defect in the right eye
and moderate superior defect in the left, attributed to the PRP treatments.
Dr. Moore concluded that Delaney had “a couple of areas of mild
decreased visual field areas, but would not hinder Claimant in activities of
daily living.” R. 713.
Dr. Moore assessed proliferative diabetic retinopathy post PRP
treatments “to prevent retinal tears/breaks/detachments in future,” and a
history of macular retinal edema treated with injections to prevent further
vision damage. Dr. Moore opined that Delaney was at great risk of losing
her vision due to her uncontrolled diabetes. Dr. Moore recommended
continuing to follow care instructions from the Washington University
physicians, driving only during the daytime in familiar locations, continue
wearing glasses, but not contact lenses. Dr. Moore also opined that, “a
hand held magnifying glass may help near vision.” R. 713.
On May 29, 2014, state agency physician Dr. Charles Kenney, M.D.,
prepared a Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment. R. 121-23.
Dr. Kinney opined that Delaney had no physical functional limitations. Dr.
Kenney opined that Delaney’s visual limitations would not affect her ability
to work. R. 122.
Page 7 of 32

Delaney continued to have monthly injections in her eyes from May
2014 through January 2016. R. 850-51, 853, 855, 857, 863-869, 875, 92428.
On February 26, 2015, Delaney saw state agency physician Dr. Hima
Atluri, M.D., for consultative examination. R. 845-49. Delaney reported
that she was following her diabetic regimen and, “[s]ince almost 2011 to
now” she has had “no diabetic ketoacidosis, and no hypoglycemic
reactions.” R. 845. On examination, her corrected visual acuity was 20/50
in the right eye and 20/40 in the left, both with or without pinhole. R. 847.
On March 4, 2015, her corrected visual acuity was 20/50 in the right
eye and 20/60 in the left. R. 851.
On March 16, 2015, Delaney saw state agency psychologist, Dr.
Stephen Vincent, Ph.D., for a mental status examination. R. 888-91.
Delaney reported, “[S]he has tried to work as a cashier at Dollar General,
but stopped secondary to a history of interacting with co-workers and
supervisors, as well as episodes of sudden onset of intense fear and panic
episodes related to interacting with the general public.” R. 888. She
reported having anxiety when she had to leave her home. She was
prescribed clonazepam for the anxiety. She took the medication when she
knew she was leaving her home. She said she had “episodes of sudden
Page 8 of 32

onset of intense fear, particularly when she is outside of her ‘comfort zone,’
with symptoms that include fear of losing control, dizziness and
lightheadedness, chest pain, discomfort, shortness of breath, tightness
around her throat, trembling and shaking and episodes of accelerated heart
rate.” R. 888-89. She reported that she lived with her boyfriend. She also
reported that she liked to paint, read, and care for her dog, “which she finds
therapeutic.” R. 889. Dr. Vincent assessed generalized anxiety disorder;
panic disorder, with agoraphobic features; and social anxiety disorder. Dr.
Vincent stated that cognitively, she was intact. R. 891.
On April 2, 2015, state agency physician Dr. James Hinchen, M.D.,
prepared a Physical Residual Functional Capacity Assessment. R. 139-42.
Dr. Hinchen opined that Delaney could frequently lift ten pounds and
occasionally lift 20 pounds; stand and/or walk about six hours in an eighthour workday; sit about six hours in an eight-hour workday; occasionally
climb ramps and stairs; never climb ropes, ladders, and scaffolds; and
occasionally balance. Dr. Hinchen also opined that Delaney should avoid
concentrated exposures to vibration and hazards. Dr. Hinchen opined that
Delaney was not functionally limited by her impaired vision. R. 140-41.
On April 29, 2015, Delaney went to see endocrinologist Dr. Anju
Gurung, M.D., for uncontrolled type 1 diabetes. Delaney reported that she
Page 9 of 32

missed taking her Lantus insulin 1-2 times per week and missed taking her
Humalog insulin 1-2 times per day. She also did not eat three meals a day.
She often skipped breakfast. She also ate snacks during the day. Her
lunches and dinners usually included 60 grams of carbohydrates. Her
meter showed blood sugar readings of 232-330 in the mornings, 200s-300s
at lunchtime and suppertime, with some readings in 400s-500s when she
ate chocolates and cookies. R. 993. Dr. Gurung adjusted her insulin
dosages, instructed her to eat three meals a day without snacks, and
referred her to a dietician to learn to count carbohydrates. R. 996.
On June 16, 2015, Delaney underwent a consultative examination by
optometrist Dr. Ronald Weingart, O.D. R. 894-905. Delaney reported to
Dr. Weingart that she regularly bumped into walls and tripped over unseen
objects on the floor. She said that she easily lost her balance and
periodically fell. She reported that she had to use railings and walls to
guide her movement. She said that she held onto friends or family
members to walk outside, especially at dusk. R. 894. Delaney reported
that she could not read cooking ingredients or recipes. She said she could
not tell if a meal was fully cooked. Delaney reported that she lost her
cashier job “after a blood vessel burst inside her in 2013 preventing her
from being able to read credit card numbers.” R. 894.
Page 10 of 32

Dr. Weingart said Delaney had poor depth perception and had lost
much of her peripheral vision. R. 895. Dr. Weingart opined:
Ms. Delaney experiences difficulty while walking, reading,
reading cooking instructions, and preparing a meal. She is
unable to locate and maintain an occupation, as well as,
perform many other Activities of Daily Living (ADL).
R. 895.
On examination, Delaney’s corrected visual acuity was 20/50 in both
eyes for distance and 20/30 for near vision. Her visual acuity diminished in
low light situations, such as dawn and dusk. She had some colorblindness. She had difficulty working both eyes together (binocular
function). She could not “effectively track moving targets.” Dr. Weingart
said this problem was consistent with peripheral vision loss due to PRP.
Dr. Weingart said poor binocular vision was “consistent with her symptoms
of dizziness, disorientation, and poor depth perception.” R 896. Testing
also showed a midline shift—Delaney perceived a straight line in front to be
on her left side. Dr. Weingart said this was consistent with loss of balance.
R. 896-97.
Field of vision testing showed “a significant loss of sensitivity in Both
Eyes in the Peripheral Visual Field.” Dr. Weingart found that Delaney lost
“clinically significant” amounts of peripheral vision, which affected balance,
fusion of central vision, and a person’s sense of location in space. Dr.
Page 11 of 32

Weingart said the loss of visual field was consistent with dizziness, falling
down, and tripping. He said the loss of field of vision explained why she
used a wall as a guide to walk. R. 897.
A Visually Evoked Potential test showed “a reduction in the
magnitude of information reaching the Visual Cortex and this information is
delayed.” Dr. Weingart said the reduced Visually Evoked Potential
“significantly impacts Ms. Delaney’s ability to discriminate small text, as
well as, move through space.” R. 898. Dr. Weingart also stated that the
quality of Delaney’s vision changed dramatically each day due to
fluctuations in her blood sugar levels. R898. Dr. Weingart referred Delaney
to her medical and visual treating professionals for treatment. R. 899.
On July 8, 2015, Delaney saw Dr. Gurung for a follow up on her
diabetes. R. 999-1004. Delaney reported poor compliance with insulin and
diet instructions. Delaney reported that she did not pay attention to
carbohydrate amounts in her meals. Dr. Gurung said it was not clear that
Delaney could count carbohydrate intake accurately. Delaney’s meter
download showed blood sugar readings from 53 to 445, “which is related
with poor carb counting.” R. 1000. Dr. Gurung said her that her failure to
maintain her insulin dosage regimen made it “quite hard to assess her
glycemic profile.” Dr. Gurung said Delaney was interested in an insulin
Page 12 of 32

pump, but she needed to count carbs effectively first. R. 1002. Dr. Gurung
adjusted her medications and had her keep a two-week log of her blood
sugar readings. R. 1002. From July 16, 2015 to July 29, 2015, Delaney
kept a log of her blood sugar values. Her blood sugar varied from 76 to
457. R. 910.
On March 2, 2016, Delaney saw Dr. Michael Jakoby, M.D. for a follow
up on her diabetes. R. 1006-10. Dr. Jakoby found that her diabetes was
uncontrolled “secondary to inconsistent carbohydrate
consumption/sedentary lifestyle.” Delaney stated she was interested in an
insulin pump. Dr. Jakoby stated that she needed “better glycemic control
and good CHO counting skills before considering insulin pump.”

Dr.

Jakoby adjusted her insulin dosages and referred her to a dietician. R.
1009.
EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS
July 7, 2016 Hearing
On July 7, 2016, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted an
evidentiary hearing. R. 75-101. Delaney appeared with her attorney. An
independent medical expert, Dr. Bruce Biller, M.D., testified at the hearing.
Dr. Biller was a specialist in internal medicine and endocrinology. He has
been an independent medical expert for the Social Security Administration
Page 13 of 32

since 1978. R. 79. The ALJ had not discussed the case with Dr. Biller
before the hearing. Dr. Biller reviewed the medical evidence in the record,
but did not examine Delaney. R. 80.
Dr. Biller opined that Delaney’s physical condition did not meet or
equal the requirements of any physical condition listed in the Social
Security Administration’s Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Part 4040,
Subpart P, Appendix 1 (Listings). R. 85, 90. Dr. Biller did not opine on
Delaney’s mental condition. R. 87.
Dr. Biller further opined:
I felt the record after May 1, 2012, does not show significant
physical limitation . . .
....
[i]n activities of daily living both self-care and doing usual things
people do, she had the ability to for example, playing cards with
her family and doing various physical activities around the
house regularly.
....
I felt the record did not show significant physical limitations.
R. 90-91.
Dr. Biller opined the following concerning Delaney’s vision:
The limitation I saw was you would want to protect the eyes
from extremes to prevent harm. So this would not be someone
who should be working in a dusty environment or an
environment where a splash might occur from chemical, etc.
....
Page 14 of 32

But in terms of office work, I didn't see that there would be a
problem, and I believe her prior work at Dollar General was
office work.
R. 92.
The ALJ asked Dr. Biller about Dr. Weingart’s opinions. Dr. Biller
dismissed Dr. Weingart’s statements that Delaney could not read recipes or
credit card numbers. Dr. Biller said those claims were just recitations of
Delaney’s statements. Dr. Biller relied on the tests that showed her vision
was corrected to 20/30 to 20/50 range. He also noted that doctors
recommended use of a magnifying glass to read small print. Dr. Biller said
that many people use magnifying glasses for this purpose. R. 96. Dr. Biller
concluded that her visual impairment would not preclude her from working:
I didn't see that the degree of loss would impair her from the
type of work that she has been doing previously in terms of
office work and there may need to be an accommodation such
as the magnifier, but I didn't see that the visual field issue was
significant enough and furthermore, I can point out that she was
driving and there was no evidence that she could not drive
during the day despite some diminishment in visual field.
R. 97. Dr. Biller also stated that Delaney’s depth perception deficits were
not a problem. Dr. Biller opined that Delaney’s ability to draw and paint
indicated that her depth perception deficits would not limit her ability to
perform office work. R. 97.

Page 15 of 32

Dr. Biller further stated that Delaney’s retinopathy was not
progressive. He said that if she was compliant with her diabetes regimen,
her vision should not deteriorate further. R. 97-99.
The ALJ concluded the hearing due to a lack of time. He said he
would set another hearing to hear additional evidence. R. 99-101.
October 27, 2016 Hearing
The ALJ conducted a second hearing on October 27, 2016. R. 3874. Delaney appeared with her attorney. Vocational expert Bob Hammond
also appeared at the hearing. R. 38. Delaney testified first.
Delaney testified that she lived with her boyfriend in a one-level
residence. She completed about two years of college course work. She
indicated she did not secure a degree because she was sick often. R. 4344. Delaney did not drive often, although she had a driver’s license. She
did not drive at night. R. 43.
Delaney last worked in June 2012. She was a cashier at a Dollar
General store. She said she had to stop working because of her eyesight.
She indicated that she was not able to read credit cards and the screens on
the cash register machines. R. 45-46. Delaney noted that she could see
well enough to drive during the daytime, but she could not see well enough
to read or to make out facial features if a person was far away. She
Page 16 of 32

testified that she was able to see “signs and stoplights.” R. 46. She said
she could recognize the color and shape of street signs like stop signs and
she could recognize the color of stoplights. R. 62-63. She drove mainly in
her hometown because she was familiar with the streets. She had
someone else drive if she went out of town. R. 63.
She said she could read bills if she brought them close to her face.
She also had her boyfriend read bills to her. She stated she could read a
tablet screen because she could enlarge the print. R. 46-47, 51.
Delaney indicated her boyfriend drove a semi-tractor trailer. He was
gone during the week and home on weekends. Delaney said she lived
alone during the week. She got help during the week from her mother or
neighbors. She said her mother lived across the alleyway. R. 47. Her
mother helped her cook, read mail, or run errands. R. 59. Delaney,
however, testified that she could take care of herself for the most part. She
could take care of her personal hygiene and could dress herself. R. 47-48.
Delaney said she did housework and laundry. R. 49. She testified
that once when doing laundry she mistook a mouse for a sock. She picked
up the mouse by mistake. R. 59. She said she went grocery shopping if
her anxiety was not too high. She went to smaller stores sometimes
because of her anxiety. She said her parents owned “lake lots” so she sat
Page 17 of 32

around a fire near a lake “a lot of the time.” R. 49. She testified that when
she went camping, her boyfriend “is usually my feet and eyes.” She said
she usually hung on to him and he showed her where to go to get to the
campsite. R. 73.
Delaney said she also hung out with friends, although she said she
had not done that for about three months. R. 61.
Delaney indicated that she washed dishes. Often, however, she did
not get the dishes clean. Her boyfriend often put the dishes back into the
sink because they were not clean. R. 52.
Delaney said she used the microwave oven to prepare meals. She
also cooked on the stove or in a conventional oven when her boyfriend was
there. She said he checked to see whether meat was done. R. 52.
Delaney said she used to like to draw, paint, and make jewelry, but
not anymore. She said she could not because of her eyesight. She
testified that she had not engaged in any drawing, painting, or jewelry
making for three years. R. 50. Delaney said she sat very close to the
television when she watched it. She said she sat about three feet from her
60-inch television. R. 51.
Delaney said she avoided being on her feet. She testified that she
was on her feet when she participated in a charity walk for the Juvenile
Page 18 of 32

Diabetes Research Foundation. She said she had to stay off her feet for
“the next couple days” after because “they were on fire.” R. 61. Delaney
only walked about a block or two during the charity walk. R. 62.
Delaney testified that she no longer received injections in her eyes
because her insurance did not cover the doctors at Washington University
eye center any more. She said she has not attempted to find a new doctor
to give her the shots. R. 53.
Vocational expert Hammond then testified. The ALJ asked
Hammond the following hypothetical question:
Assume the past work activity the same as the claimant 's,
exertional capacity limited to light work, no climbing of ladders,
ropes, or scaffolds, other postural functions performed
occasionally, need to avoid environmental hazards, need to
avoid concentrated exposure to extreme temperatures, to
pulmonary irritants, and to vibrations. Also, a limitation to
performance of unskilled work that could be detailed but would
be really involved but would only involve a few concrete
variables, occasional interaction with the public, co-workers,
and supervisors, and also the need to receive any work-related
instructions either orally or by demonstration. How would the
past work be affected by those limitations?
R. 64-65. Hammond opined that such a person could not perform
Delaney’s past relevant work. R. 65.
Hammond opined that such a person could perform other work
including: bench assembly, with 2,800 such jobs in Illinois and 136,000
nationally; assembler II, with 2,500 jobs in Illinois, and 131,000 nationally;
Page 19 of 32

and injection molder with 1,700 such jobs in Illinois, and 121,000 nationally.
Hammond said these three were representative of the type of jobs the
person could perform. R. 65.
Hammond also said that according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s
Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), the person could perform the job
of housekeeper maid, with 2,700 such jobs in Illinois, and 133,000
nationally. Hammond, however, disagreed with the DOT on this point. He
opined that the person could not perform this type of job. R. 66.
Hammond opined that the person would have no problem using a
magnifying glass while performing the two assembly jobs. However, the
number of bench assembly positions would be reduced by approximately
50 percent. He said that the person could set up the magnifying glass on a
stand at her work area. Hammond testified that he has seen some
employers provide magnifying glasses for these types of jobs. R. 67-69.
Hammond opined that a person would have a difficult time using a
magnifying glass while performing the injection molder and housekeeper
maid jobs. He opined that these two jobs were “hand intensive” and using a
magnifying glass “would interfere with persistency and pace of those two
positions.” R. 67-68. Hammond, however, stated that a person in these

Page 20 of 32

two assembly jobs would be allowed to bring a magnifying glass to use at
work. R. 68-69.
THE DECISION OF THE ALJ
The ALJ issued his decision on December 29, 2016. R. 15-30. The
ALJ followed the five-step analysis set forth in Social Security
Administration Regulations (Analysis). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920.
Step 1 requires that the claimant not be currently engaged in substantial
gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If true, Step 2
requires the claimant to have a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If true, Step 3 requires a determination of
whether the claimant is so severely impaired that she is disabled
regardless of her age, education and work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(d), 416.920(d). To meet this requirement at Step 3, the
claimant's condition must meet or be equal to the criteria of one of the
Listings in 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If the claimant is not so severely impaired, the
ALJ proceeds to Step 4 of the Analysis.
Step 4 requires the claimant not to be able to return to her prior work
considering her age, education, work experience, and Residual Functional
Capacity (RFC). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and (f), 416.920(e) and (f). If
Page 21 of 32

the claimant cannot return to her prior work, then Step 5 requires a
determination of whether the claimant is disabled considering her RFC,
age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g),
404.1560(c), 416.920(g), 416.960(c). The claimant has the burden of
presenting evidence and proving the issues on the first four steps. The
Commissioner has the burden on the last step; the Commissioner must
show that, considering the listed factors, the claimant can perform some
type of gainful employment that exists in the national economy. 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1512, 404.1560(c); Weatherbee v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 565, 569 (7th
Cir. 2011); Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 352 (7th Cir.
2005).
The ALJ determined that she met her burden at Steps 1 and 2.
Delaney had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 1, 2012,
and she suffered from the severe impairments of diabetic neuropathy,
diabetic retinopathy, affective disorder, and anxiety. R. 17. The ALJ
determined at Step 3 that Delaney’s impairments or combination of
impairments did not meet or medically equal any Listing. R. 18. The
Listings related to eyesight required corrected visual acuity of 20/200 or
less, a contracted visual field of 20 degrees or less, or a visual efficiency
percentage of 20 or less. Listings 2.02, 2.03, and 2.04. The ALJ said the
Page 22 of 32

medical evidence showed corrected visual acuity ranging 20/40 to 20/60,
and no medical evidence showed either the required contraction of visual
field or the required visual efficiency percentage. R. 18.1
At Step 4, the ALJ found that Delaney had the following RFC:
After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned
finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b) except: the claimant may not climb ladders, ropes,
or scaffolds; the claimant can perform other postural functions
occasionally; the claimant must avoid workplace hazards, the
claimant must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme
temperatures, pulmonary irritants, and vibrations; the claimant
needs the opportunity to use a magnifying glass if desired; the
claimant is limited to the performance of unskilled work that can
be detailed but that involves few concrete variables, occasional
interaction with the public, coworkers, and supervisors, and the
need to receive any work-related instructions either orally or by
visual demonstration.
R. 20. The ALJ relied on the records that showed Delaney’s visual acuity
was corrected to 20/40 to 20/60, and on Dr. Biller’s opinions that she could
perform office work based on his review of the medical records. The ALJ
also relied on evidence that Delaney had sufficient functional visual
capability because she continued to drive, draw, and paint. She also was
able to live alone during the week while her boyfriend was working as a

1

Dr. Weingart tested for visual field but did not find a specific percentage of contraction. He also tested
for visually evoked potential, but did not test for visual efficiency percentage. To the extent the visually
evoked potential is the same as visual efficiency percentage, Dr. Weingart did not find a particular
percentage. R. 897-99.

Page 23 of 32

truck driver. The ALJ also noted that Delaney told Dr. Vincent that she
stopped working because of her fear of interacting with the public, not her
vision problems. The ALJ noted that “the medical expert and consultative
examiner both stated” that she needed to use a magnifying glass. R. 26.
The ALJ noted that Dr. Moore O.D. opined that Delaney “use a magnifying
glass as needed.” R. 24, 713.
The ALJ stated that he gave great weight to Dr. Biller’s opinions. The
ALJ also relied on Dr. Moore’s consultative examination. The ALJ
discounted Dr. Weingart’s opinions. The ALJ said most of Dr. Weingart’s
opinions were based solely on Delaney’s subjective reports that she
bumped into walls, could not read a cookbook, could not use appliances,
and had difficulty with activities of daily living. The ALJ credited Dr.
Weingart’s observations that her corrected visual acuity was 20/50 for
distance vision and 20/30 for near vision. The ALJ also gave greater
weight to the opinions of Dr. Biller that Delaney’s peripheral vision loss
would not preclude office work and his observation that Delaney continued
to drive. R. 28. The ALJ gave limited weight to the opinions of Drs.
Kenney and Hinchen. The ALJ noted that Drs. Kenney and Hinchen did
not have all the evidence in the record available to them when they
rendered their opinions. R. 28.
Page 24 of 32

The ALJ also found that Delaney’s statements regarding the extent to
which her visual limitations affected her ability to function were not entirely
consistent with the medical evidence and the other evidence in the record.
R. 23. The visual acuity testing was inconsistent with her statements that
she could not read credit card numbers. The reduced peripheral vision and
depth perception would not preclude office work according to Dr. Biller.
Delaney also could live alone during the week. Delaney could paint, draw,
and drive. Delaney also told Dr. Vincent that she stopped working because
of her fear of interacting with the pubic. The ALJ found that this statement
contradicted her other statements that she stopped working because she
could not read credit card numbers. R. 26. The ALJ concluded that the
evidence as a whole, including her statements, supported the limitations
set forth in the ALJ’s RFC determination.
After determining Delaney’s RFC, the ALJ found at Step 4 that she
could not return to her prior relevant work. R. 28. The ALJ determined at
Step 5 that Delaney could perform a significant number of jobs that existed
in the national economy. The ALJ relied on the Medical-Vocational
Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, and the testimony
of vocational expert Hammond. The ALJ credited Hammond’s testimony
that a person with Delaney’s age, education, work experience, and RFC
Page 25 of 32

could perform the representative jobs of bench assembly and assembler II.
The ALJ concluded that Delaney was not disabled. R. 29.
Delaney appealed the ALJ’s decision. On March 2, 2017, Appeals
Council denied Delaney’s request for review. The decision of the ALJ then
became the final decision of the Commissioner. R. 1. Delaney then filed
this action for judicial review.
ANALYSIS
This Court reviews the Decision of the Commissioner to determine
whether it is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is
“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate”
to support the decision. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
This Court must accept the findings if they are supported by substantial
evidence, and may not substitute its judgment or reweigh the evidence.
Jens v. Barnhart, 347 F.3d 209, 212 (7th Cir. 2003); Delgado v. Bowen, 782
F.2d 79, 82 (7th Cir. 1986). This Court will not review the ALJ’s evaluation
of statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effect of
symptoms unless the evaluation is patently wrong and lacks any
explanation or support in the record. (emphasis added) See Pepper v.
Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 367 (7th Cir. 2014); Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408,
413-14 (7th Cir. 2008); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *1 (2016) (The
Page 26 of 32

Social Security Administration no longer uses the term credibility in the
evaluation of statements regarding symptoms). The ALJ must articulate at
least minimally his analysis of all relevant evidence. Herron v. Shalala, 19
F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 1994). The ALJ must “build an accurate and logical
bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.” Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863,
872 (7th Cir. 2000).
The ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. The
majority of the medical evidence regarding her vision, with the exception of
Dr. Weingart’s opinions, supported the RFC determination. The ALJ
credited Dr. Biller’s opinions over Dr. Weingart’s.2 Both offered expert
opinions. Dr. Biller testified as an independent medical expert, and Dr.
Weingart performed a consultative examination. The Court will not reweigh
the evidence offered by these experts. See Jens, 347 F.3d at 212;
Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d at 82. The ALJ’s decision to give limited
weight to Delaney’s statements about the limitations caused by her
retinopathy was supported by: (1) medical evidence other than Dr.
Weingart’s report, (2) her repeated statements that she liked to paint and
draw (and so had the visual ability to do so), (3) her ability to drive in the

2

Delaney erroneously asserts that Dr. Weingart was her treating optometrist. Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 14) (Delaney Brief), at 1. That statement is clearly wrong. Dr.
Weingart conducted a consultative examination. Nothing in the record indicates that Dr. Weingart ever
treated Delaney. Neither Dr. Biller nor Dr. Weingart treated Delaney.

Page 27 of 32

daytime, and (4) her statement that she stopped working because of her
fears of contact with the public (rather than because of her vision).3 The
ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Delaney argues that the ALJ failed “to build an accurate and logical
bridge” from the evidence to his conclusion regarding the functional
limitations cause by her limited vision.4 Delaney argues that the ALJ erred
because he credited Dr. Biller’s opinions and tests that consistently showed
corrected visual acuity in the 20/40 to 20/60 range rather than Dr.
Weingart’s opinions. Delaney essentially asks the Court to reweigh the
evidence. The Court will not do this. See Jens, 347 F.3d at 212; Delgado
v. Bowen, 782 F.2d at 82. The ALJ’s built a logical bridge from the medical
evidence that he credited to his conclusion.5
Delaney argues that the ALJ improperly evaluated Delaney’s
statements about the severity of her symptoms. An ALJ must evaluate

3
Delaney testified at her hearing on October 27, 2016, that she stopped painting and drawing three years
earlier. R. 50. Other evidence indicated that she did not stop these activities. She told Dr. Trello in 2014
that she liked to draw and make jewelry, and she told Dr. Vincent in 2015 that she liked to paint. R. 706
and 889. In light of these inconsistent statements, the ALJ could find that she still drew and painted.
4
Delaney makes a passing assertion that the ALJ erred at Step 3 in finding that her condition did not
meet or equal a Listing. Delaney Brief, at 7. Delaney also made a passing mention of the ALJ’s findings
at Step 3 that she had mild restrictions on daily living and moderate difficulties with maintaining social
functioning and concentration, persistence or pace. Delaney Brief, at 15. Delaney, however, did not
develop an argument regarding the ALJ’s analysis at Step 3 and, as such, any such argument is waived.
See United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991).
5
Delaney also criticized the ALJ for not discussing the fact that she had “pinhole vision.” See e.g.,
Delaney Brief, at 13. No medical professional diagnosed her with pinhole vision. Some used a pinhole to
test her visual acuity. See e.g., R. 699 (Dr. Chapa’s examination), R. 712 (Dr. Moore’s consultative
examination). None diagnosed her with “pinhole vision.”

Page 28 of 32

statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her
symptoms in light of all of the evidence in the record, including the medical
evidence. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 at *3 (March16, 2016). The ALJ
“must consider whether an individual’s statements about the intensity,
persistence, and limiting effects of his or her symptoms are consistent with
the medical signs and laboratory findings in the record.” SSR 16-3p, 2016
WL 1119029 at *4 (March16, 2016). When objective medical test results
are not consistent with the individual’s statement about his symptoms, the
objective medical evidence “may be less supportive of an individual’s
statements about pain or other symptoms than test results and statements
that are consistent with the other evidence in the record.” SSR 16-3p, 2016
WL 1119029 at *5. In this case, the ALJ found that the medical evidence
and the other evidence in the record were less supportive of Delaney’s
claims about the limiting effects of her vision. The ALJ’s explanation of the
ALJ’s evaluation of her statements was supported by evidence in the
record. The Court will not revisit them. See Pepper, 712 F.3d at 367.
There was no error.
Delaney argues that the ALJ improperly decided that she could work
based on her report of her daily activities. She argues that the ALJ ignored
the fact that she performed these activities with difficulty. The ALJ,
Page 29 of 32

however, did not find that Delaney could work based solely on her reports
of daily activities. The ALJ found that she was not disabled based on all of
the evidence in the record. The ALJ relied on the medical evidence,
Delaney’s statements to Dr. Vincent that she stopped working for a reason
other than eyesight, her reports of daily activities, the testimony of
vocational expert Hammond, and the Medical-Vocational Guidelines. The
regulations require an ALJ to consider daily activities in evaluating the
effect of a claimant’s symptoms on her ability to function along with other
evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). The cases cited by Delaney
involved situations in which the ALJ relied solely on only a claimant’s daily
activities to prove that she was not disabled or equated household chores
with competitive work. See Gentle v. Barnhart, 430 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir.
2005). The ALJ did not commit this error.
Delaney argues that the ALJ erred by failing to consider how the use
of a magnifying glass would affect her ability to perform the representative
jobs of bench assembly and assembler II. Delaney cites a case in which
an ALJ did not consider the impact of the claimant’s vision on his ability to
work. Beamon v. Astrue, 2012 WL 871096, at *9-10 (N.D. Ill. March 13,
2012). The claimant in Beamon used a magnifying glass to read. Here,
the ALJ considered extensive evidence on the impact of Delaney’s vision
Page 30 of 32

on her ability to work. Furthermore, Hammond testified that a person could
perform the bench assembly and assembler II two jobs with a magnifying
glass and he knew of employers that provided magnifying glasses to
employees who performed these jobs. The Beamon case does not apply.
Delaney also argues that the ALJ erred in relying on Dr. Moore’s
opinion that a handheld magnifying glass may help near vision. She
argues that the ALJ should have given more weight to Dr. Weingart’s
opinions. Delaney Brief, at 22. The Court, again, will not reweigh the
evidence. Dr. Moore’s opinion supported the ALJ’s determination that
Delaney’s RFC included the ability to use a magnifying glass. Hammond’s
opinions supported the ALJ’s finding that she could use a magnifying glass
to perform the bench assembly and assembler II jobs. There was no error.
Delaney argues that the ALJ erred by not letting Hammond testify
about how the use of a magnifying glass affected a person’s efficiency in
performing work. Hammond stated that a handheld magnifying glass would
limit a person’s persistency and pace in performing the housekeeper maid
and injection molder jobs. The ALJ stopped Hammond and asked him to
address only whether a person could use a magnifying glass in those jobs.
R. 68-69. Hammond indicated that the injection molder position and the
housekeeper maid position would be effected by the use of a magnifying
Page 31 of 32

glass. However, the assembler II position would still be qualified and the
use of a magnifying glass would not be an issue in either of the two
assembly positions. Any possible error in stopping Hammond’s testimony
on this point was harmless. The ALJ did not find that Delaney could
perform either the housekeeper maid jobs or injection molder jobs. The
ALJ only found that she could perform the representative jobs of bench
assembly and assembler II. Hammond testified that use of a magnifying
glass would not affect her ability to perform all of the assembler II jobs and
50 percent of the bench assembly jobs. The discussion about job
efficiency only related to the housekeeper maid and injection molder jobs,
and so, did not affect the outcome.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendant Commissioner’s
Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 16) is ALLOWED, Plaintiff Delaney’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 13) is DENIED, and the decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED. All pending motions are denied as moot.
THIS CASE IS CLOSED.
ENTER: June 13, 2018

s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 32 of 32