Spindler v. Astrue

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Arlander Keys on 12/28/2012. (ac, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

THOMAS D. SPINDLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social
Security
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case. No. 11 C 3683
Magistrate Judge
Arlander Keys

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Thomas Spindler (“Mr. Spindler” or “Plaintiff”),
seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security (“Commissioner”) finding him not disabled and
denying his claim for Social Security Benefits under Title II of
the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§416 and 423.

This case is

before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment.

Mr.

Spindler raises several issues for review, including: 1) whether
the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) committed reversible error
by not giving the medical opinion of Dr. Dekhtyar controlling
weight, 2) whether the ALJ failed to weigh the medical opinion
evidence based on the requirements set out in 20 C.F.R.
404.1527(d), 3) whether the ALJ improperly concluded that,
because Mr. Spindler was able to complete basic tasks, he was not
disabled, 4) whether the ALJ improperly determined that Mr.
Spindler could perform work based on his ability to complete very
simple tasks at home, 5) whether the ALJ improperly substituted

her own lay opinion in determining Mr. Spindler’s Residual
Functional Capacity (RFC), 6) whether the ALJ improperly
determined that Mr. Spindler’s claims of debilitation due to pain
and mental limitations were not credible, and 7) whether the ALJ
failed to take adequately into account how Mr. Spindler’s obesity
may affect his other impairments.

For the reasons set forth

below, Claimant's motion for summary judgment is denied, and the
Commissioner's motion for summary judgment is granted.
BACKGROUND FACTS
PRE-DECISION PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 29, 2007, Mr. Spindler filed a Title II
application for disability benefits, alleging disability
beginning April 2, 2006.

The claim was initially denied on

February 6, 2008, and again upon reconsideration on June 16,
2008.

Thereafter, Mr. Spindler filed a timely request for a

hearing, which was conducted on July 7, 2009.

Mr. Spindler, age

43 at the time of his alleged disability onset date, subsequently
changed age category to that of a “younger individual” between
the age of 45-49 as defined by 20 CFR 404.1563 by the time of his
hearing.

ALJ Janice Bruning issued a ruling denying benefits on

January 4, 2010, finding that Mr. Spindler was not disabled under
sections 216(I) and 223 of the Social Security Act.
POST-DECISION PROCEDURAL HISTORY

2

Mr. Spindler requested review by the Appeals Council but was
denied on April 29, 2011.

Thus, the ALJ’s decision became the

final decision of the Commissioner.

Mr. Spindler filed a

complaint with this court on June 9, 2011, seeking a review of
the decision.

The parties consented to exercise of jurisdiction

by a magistrate judge on July 14, 2011.
motions for summary judgment were filed.

Thereafter, crossThis Court has

jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g).
HEARING TESTIMONY
I. Claimant’s Hearing Testimony
At the July 7, 2009 hearing before the ALJ, Mr. Spindler,
who was born on February 15, 1963, appeared and was represented
by counsel.

He testified that he received his GED and was in the

navy from 1980 to 1981.

[R. 37]

He did not receive any special

training while in the service, nor does he have any other
vocational or specialized training.

Id.

He testified that he is

married and lives in a house with his wife and their 12 year-old
daughter.

[R. 36]

His wife works 10 hours a week at a church.

Aside from a public aid health card, they receive no other public
assistance.

[R. 37]

Mr. Spindler testified that he stopped

driving about a year ago because it began to set off migraine
headaches, and he also would freeze up at heavily congested
intersections.

[R. 48]

With regard to his daily routine, Mr. Spindler testified
that his wife performs the majority of the daily tasks including
3

grocery shopping, driving, making the bed, and taking out the
garbage.

However, he can take a chair to the sink to wash

dishes, he can do the laundry, sweep, prepare himself a meal, and
he can mow the lawn in small sections.

[R. 49-50]

His wife and

daughter care for several family pets, while he is solely able to
care for his pet snake by feeding it mice and
cleaning its tank.

[R. 51]

occasionally

Mr. Spindler testified that his

typical day begins around 10:00am, as the medication his
psychiatrist prescribed makes him sleepy.

[R. 54]

After rising,

he turns on the lamp for his snake, checks the mail, watches
television and makes lunch.
church, while he stays home.

Id.

His wife leaves to work at the

Id.

During the day, he is unable

to sleep, and often spends time stretching his back out on the
couch.

[R. 54, 48-49]

He testified that, overall, his

medication keeps him sleepy and he gets dizzy regularly each day.
[R. 55]

Depending on how he feels, he usually goes to bed around

9:00pm or 11:00pm.

[R. 54]

Mr. Spindler testified that he rarely drinks, and added that
he can no longer do so on his medications.

[R. 45]

He also

testified that he has not smoked marijuana since 2007.

Id.

For

entertainment he testified to enjoying watching television,
listening to shortwave radios, and that he took up teaching
himself the guitar.

[R. 54]

He testified to using the computer

to check email and search Craigslist for approximately half an

4

hour each week.

Id.

He used to enjoy canoeing and mountain

biking, but has not canoed since 2006 due to the issues with his
shoulder.

Id.

Mr. Spindler testified to having some issues

regarding his daily personal care, including difficulty putting
on his pants because his right leg does not lift high enough, and
that because he can not reach behind himself well, when he goes
to the bathroom he must take a shower with a spray hose
afterward.

[R. 49]

With regard to socialization, Mr. Spindler

testified that he has one friend and does not enjoy socializing
with people often. [R. 50]

He regularly attends Sunday morning

church service and occasionally attends activities and
performances in which his daughter participates.

[R. 51]

With regard to his work history, Mr. Spindler testified that
his last real job was in 2006 when he worked for Standard Safety
Equipment.

[R. 40]

He stopped working there when he had to have

a stent placed in his heart on April 2, 2006.

Id.

He began a

new machine shop job shortly after the stenting, but was only
able to work for a couple weeks before he had to quit due to
severe headaches and dizziness.

[R. 42]

Mr. Spindler testified

that he worked in his brother’s machine shop off and on during
2007 and 2008.

[R. 38-39]

He did not work there everyday, but

instead his brother would “throw him a couple of hours and if he
had to leave and go home it was okay with him.”

[R. 39]

He

testified that he also did a couple other small jobs in 2007,

5

each job required standing and the lifting of small parts no
heaver than 20 pounds.

[R. 42-43]

Mr. Spindler testified that

he stopped working for his brother because his back hurt too much
to continue and he could no longer drive himself to work due to
migraine headaches.

[R. 40, 48]

With regard to his ailments and medication, Mr. Spindler
testified that he currently suffers from severe back pain.

Id.

He has had physical therapy, pool therapy, and takes medication
to treat his back.

[R. 43]

He testified that he did not want to

take any pain medication, but he does go for regular check-ups
regarding his heart, and takes medication for his hypertension.
Mr. Spindler testified that, since the stenting, he has not had
any other major issues regarding his heart.

Id.

He originally

was prescribed a CPAP, but has since switched to the use of a
BIPAP in order to sleep.

Id.

Mr. Spindler testified that, shortly after the stenting
operation, he began to experience trouble with his vision.
44]

[R.

He testified that watching rotating things or driving would

bring on a headache and flickering in his eyes.

Id.

After

experiencing body pain and weakness, Mr. Spindler testified, he
saw a doctor and was tested for a stroke.
results were negative.

Id.

However, the

The doctor explained that he had a bad

reaction to Lipitor and took him off of the drug.

6

Id.

Mr.

Spindler testified that, although his shoulder and hip never
fully recuperated from the reaction, he is better now. [R. 44]
With regard to his limitations and abilities, Mr. Spindler
testified that he can stand on his feet for approximately 15
minutes before his back starts hurting.

He is able to walk the

length from his car to the middle of a shopping center, and then
needs to sit before his back tightens and locks.

[R. 45] He

testified that lifting a gallon of milk with his right arm causes
pain, but his left arm is in “pretty good shape.” [R. 46]

He

testified to having difficulty climbing stairs, and explained
that his left leg goes numb and he does not have feeling there.
Id.

He was told by a doctor that the numbness is related to his

back problems.

Id.

He testified to having difficulty when

bending, stooping, crouching, crawling, and kneeling.

Id.

His

balance in general is good, however he has difficulty reaching
overhead and in front with his right arm.
his hands are ok.

Id.

Id.

He testified that

He testified to occasionally using a cane

for assistance when walking, although it was never doctor
recommended. [R. 54-55]
Mr. Spindler testified that he does not sleep well at night,
as his dreams sometimes keep him up.

[R. 47]

He went to a

psychiatrist and was prescribed medication for the issue.

Id.

He testified to seeing the psychiatrist for the past six months,
about once a month.

Id.

He was told he was suffering from

7

depression and schizophrenia.

Id.

He testified that when he was

younger, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and took medication
to control it, as well.

Id.

Mr. Spindler testified that the

current medication consisted of four pills, and that they made
him tired and he always felt kind of bored, however the
medication had caused a lot of his problems and racing thoughts
to stop.

[R. 47-48]

He testified to having racing thoughts and

other problems associated with his schizophrenia while he was
working, and to cope, he would go to the bathroom until it
ceased.

[R. 48]

His employers were never aware of his issue,

however his brother knew and would allow him to leave when he
needed.

Id.

II. Vocational Expert’s Hearing Testimony
The ALJ also heard testimony from Timothy Grobowski, a
Vocational Expert (“VE”) who reviewed Mr. Spindler’s work record
and heard Mr. Spindler’s testimony before the ALJ.

After being

asked to describe Mr. Spindler’s past work history, the VE
testified that Plaintiff previously worked as a machinist, a
slitter operator, and a maintenance tech individual.

[R. 57-58]

Mr. Spindler’s previously held positions ranged in the DOT at
medium, light, and heavy exertional levels.

Id.

The VE

testified that none of the skills Mr. Spindler previously
obtained are transferable to sedentary work.

8

Id.

The VE testified that, although Mr. Spindler could no longer
perform any of his previous jobs, there were still other jobs in
existence within the national economy that he could perform at
his current level of ability.

[R. 58-59]

The ALJ questioned the

VE on the availability of jobs that avoided exposure to heights,
moving machinery, vibration, and noise at Mr. Spindler’s level of
skill, work experience, and education.

[R. 58]

The hypothetical

individual could lift and carry 10 pounds occasionally, less than
10 pounds frequently; could stand and/or walk a total of two
hours during an eight-hour workday with a sit and stand option at
will; could sit at least six hours during an eight-hour workday
with a sit/stand option at will; could occasionally climb ramps
and stairs; could occasionally balance, stoop, crouch, and crawl;
and could have only occasional contact with the public,
coworkers, and supervisors.

[R. 59-60]

The VE testified that

there were several sedentary level positions that met the needs
of such a hypothetical person, including hand packer (2,000
positions in the Chicago area), bench assembler (3,000 positions
in the Chicago area), and inspector (1,000 positions in the
Chicago area). [R. 59]
The VE testified that the above positions would be
unavailable, however, to an individual with the aforementioned
limitations if the individual was unable to work three days per
month.

[R. 60]

Additionally, the VE testified that, if due to

9

anxiety or for whatever reason, the individual were to be offtask an average of 20 percent or more of the workday, there would
be no competitive employment, as well.

Id.

III. MEDICAL RECORDS
In addition to the testimony of Mr. Spindler and the VE, the
ALJ also considered Mr. Spindler’s relevant medical records from
his doctors, whom he had been seeking treatment from
concurrently.
Heart Issues
On April 4, 2006, Mr. Spindler was admitted to Northern
Illinois Medical Center to undergo a cardiac stenting and
catherization after a coronary angiography demonstrated
significant right coronary disease and moderate LAD disease.
201-207]

[R.

Dr. Mujahid Hussain conducted the initial consultation,

noting that Mr. Spindler was a 43-year old male with a history of
obstructive sleep apnea, palpitations, dyspnea, hypertension,
hypercholesterolemia, obesity, and LV systolic dysfunction. [R.
201]

Mr. Spindler noted to Dr. Hussain that he drinks on a daily

basis and, although he does not smoke cigarettes, he smokes
marijuana daily and has done so for the past 30 years.

10

Id.

During his physical examination, Dr. Hussein noted that Mr.
Spindler was morbidly obese1 but did not appear to be in any
distress.

Dr. Douglas Tomasian successfully performed the

cardiac stenting and catherization and recommended continued
medical therapy for the cardiomyopathy.

[R. 208]

Mr. Spindler returned to the hospital on January 16, 2007,
after suffering several episodes where his vision suddenly
blurred, his speech and hearing became garbled, and he had
difficulty walking.

[R. 217-219]

His vision, hearing, and

speech returned to normal within a couple hours, however, his
walking remained impeded.

[R 217, 379].

Attending physician Dr.

Daniel Nepomuceno physically examined Mr. Spindler and found him
to be a well developed male in no acute distress at the time.
However, while attempting to ambulate, he found him to have
obvious ataxia and a staggering gait. [R. 218]

Dr. Nepomuceno

determined that Mr. Spindler’s left ventricle was enlarged, and
although the symptoms suggested that he had suffered a transient
ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke, the tests returned unremarkable.
[R. 217]

He was medicated with a regimen of coreg, enalpril,

plavix, aspirin as needed, and was told to discontinue his use of
lipitor.

The doses of some of his medications were altered and

1

Mr. Spindler is five-foot five inches and his weight has mostly
fluctuated between 242-290 pounds.

11

he was advised that they would continue to monitor the
progression of his coronary artery disease.

Id.

Sleep Issues
Mr. Spindler stated to his doctors that he had dealt with
sleep problems for almost 20 years, he had difficulty falling
asleep, and his wife had noticed sleep apnea.

[R. 201]

Dr.

Hussain recorded that he has no prior surgical history but
underwent a sleep study in 2005, after being diagnosed with
obstructive sleep apnea.

Id.

Although the results of the study

are unknown, he was prescribed a CPAP at 15cm of water pressure
to help regulates his breathing.

Id.

The mask initially helped

him sleep through the night uninterrupted, but by 2006 its
efficacy had decreased.

On several occasions, Mr. Spindler saw

Dr. Pocholo Florentino, his primary care physician, with
complaints of continued obstructive sleep apnea.

[R. 211-213]

Each time, Dr. Florentino readjusted Mr. Spindler’s CPAP
pressure, prescribed a heated humidifier, and suggested a followup reassessment after a few months.

Id.

By 2008, progress had

reversed and Mr. Spindler once again complained of excessive
daytime sleepiness and un-refreshing sleep.

[R. 468]

Dissatisfied with Dr. Florentino, Mr. Spindler began to
regularly see Dr. Daniel Nepomuceno to address his sleep issues.
Dr. Nepomuceno noted that Mr. Spindler had been on a CPAP using
an auto-titrating pressure range from 14-18 cm of water pressure

12

on a nightly basis.

[R. 467]

He used the therapy on average

seven to eight hours a night, and during a polysomnography
performed on September 10, 2008, it was determined revolution of
events was achieved at 14 cm.

Id.

Mr. Spindler explained that

he felt like he awoke at 3:00am and was unable to get back to
sleep.

However, the polysomnography demonstrated that at 3:00am

he was awake for approximately one hour and then achieved REM
sleep from approximately 3:45am to 6:00am.

Id.

Dr. Nepomuceno started Mr. Spindler on a trial of Ambien in
an effort to improve his nighttime sleep hours, but discontinued
it after a poor response caused him to wake up in the middle of
the night, take more Ambien, and sleep walk outside.

[R. 467]

Dr. Nepomuceno determined that Mr. Spindler’s sleep apnea is well
controlled by the CPAP settings and that he appears to have
sleep-state misconception, in that he feels he is not sleeping at
night when in fact he is.

Id.

Additionally, Dr. Nepomuceno

concluded that Mr. Spindler may have an underlying psychiatric
disorder, and referred him for a psychiatric evaluation.

[R.

467]
Psychiatric Issues
In September 2008, Mr. Spindler was referred by Dr.
Nepomuceno for a psychiatric evaluation after he stated that
during periods in the middle of the night he would see
dismembered torsos floating through the air and would experience

13

“weird sexual thoughts in his head.”

[R. 467]

Psychiatrist Dr.

Aleksandr Dekhtyar, M.D., first met with Mr. Spindler in October
of 2008 and diagnosed him with schizoaffective disorder.
549]

[R.

Dr. Dekhtyar determined that Mr. Spindler’s short-term

memory was impaired, he displayed poor ability in almost all
work-related mental abilities, and his moods ranged from sad and
angry to anxious.

[R. 540-549]

His initial Global Assessment

Function Score in October of 2008 was assessed at 35-40, and
later his scores ranged from 45-60 during several visits in 2009.
Id.
Back Issues
After Mr. Spindler described suffering from severe back pain
at the hearing, the ALJ held the record open so that he could
submit evidence of said claim.

Plaintiff submitted a one-

paragraph note signed by Dr. Eric Hoeper on August 26, 2009
stating that Mr. Spindler had been under his care, treated with
physical therapy and medication, and that he recommends he be
evaluated by a spine surgeon.

[R. 537]

Additionally, the record contained evidence that, on July 1,
2008, Mr. Spindler had an MRI of his lumbar spine performed.

The

MRI revealed multilevel disc desiccation and spondylolisthesis of
L5 over S1.

[R. 499]

The examination was compared to a lumbar

spine MRI that was performed in 2000, and the doctor concluded
that no significant interval change had occurred.

14

Id.

IV. THE ALJ’S DECISION
The ALJ issued her decision on January 4, 2010, finding that
Mr. Spindler had not been under a disability within the meaning
of the Social Security Act from April 2, 2006 through the date of
her decision.

[R. 19]

The ALJ applied the five-step sequential

analysis as required by the Act, under 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(a). 
At step one, the ALJ determined that Mr. Spindler had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 2, 2006 (the
alleged onset date).

[R. 21]

At step two, the ALJ determined that Mr. Spindler had
several severe impairments including: hypertension, headaches,
coronary artery disease with stenting, sleep apnea,
spondylolisthesis, obesity, and schizioaffective disorder.

[R.

21]
At step three, the ALJ concluded that Mr. Spindler did not
have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled one of the listed impairments from 20 C.F.R.
Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. 404.1520(d), 404.1525
and 404.1526).

[R. 22]

The ALJ explained that, although Mr.

Spindler suffers from “severe” impairments, considered
individually or amalgamated, they still do not meet the criteria
of any of the Listings.

Id.

Moreover, the ALJ determined that

the limitations Mr. Spindler claims are not supported by his

15

testimony as to his daily routines and undertakings, nor by the
doctors’ treating notes.

Id.

At step four, the ALJ concluded that, although Mr.
Spindler’s impairments would preclude him from his past relevant
work, his residual functional capacity would allow him to
successfully adjust to performing sedentary work as defined in 20
C.F.R. 404.1567(a).

[R. 23]

The ALJ found that Mr. Spindler

required a position that at a maximum required 10 pounds of
lifting occasionally, and less than 10 pounds frequently;
provided for standing and/walking for only 2 hours within an 8
hour day; sitting for 6 hours in an 8 hour day, with a sit/stand
option at will; never require him to climb ladders, ropes, or
scaffolds; only occasionally climb ramps/stairs; occasionally
balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl; must avoid concentrated
exposure to work hazards including heights and moving machinery,
vibration, and noise; and limited to work that has no more than
occasional contact with the public, coworkers, or supervisors.
Id.
In making her decision, the ALJ noted that she considered
all of his symptoms and the extent to which the symptoms could
reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical
evidence and other evidence, as required under 20 C.F.R. 404.1529
and SSR’s 96-4p and 96-7p.

[R. 23]

Additionally, the ALJ

considered opinion evidence in accordance with 20 C.F.R. 404.1527

16

and SSR’s 96-2p, 96-5p, 96-6p, and 96-3p.

[R. 36]

Next, the ALJ

briefly summarized the testimony of Mr. Spindler and stated:
After careful consideration of the evidence, the
undersigned finds that the claimant’s medically
determinable impairments could reasonably be expected
to cause the alleged symptoms; however, the claimant’s
statements concerning the intensity, persistence and
limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible to
the extent they are inconsistent with the above
residual functional capacity assessment. [R. 25]
The ALJ then summarized all of Mr. Spindler’s medical records.
 [R. 25]

After this review, the ALJ stated:

In sum, the above residual functioning capacity
assessment is supported by good control of sleep apnea
if claimant uses CPAP or BiPAP. His activities of daily
living do not support complaints of disabling back pain
or mental problems. He did not actually seek mental
health treatment until October 2008, more than two
years after his alleged onset date. [R. 25]
The ALJ concluded by finding that Mr. Spindler retained the
residual functional capacity to perform at the sedentary
exertional level.

[R. 26]

At step five, after considering the testimony of the VE and
the limits of his residual functional capacity, the ALJ
determined that Mr. Spindler was unable to perform any past
relevant work, under 20 C.F.R. 404.1565. [R. 26]

However, the

ALJ found that transferability of job skills was not material to
the determination of disability because the use of the MedicalVocational Rules (SSR 82-41 and 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 2) supported a finding that Mr. Spindler was not

17

disabled, whether or not the claimant had transferable job
skills.

Id.

Finally, the ALJ reviewed the testimony of the VE and found
there to be a significant number of jobs that existed in the
national economy that Mr. Spindler could successfully adjust to
given his age, education, work experience, and residual
functional capacity under 20 C.F.R. 404.1569 and 20 C.F.R.
404.1569(a).

[R. 26-27]

He qualified for occupations such as

hand packer, bench assembler, and inspector, which totaled 6,000
positions within the Chicago area.

[R. 27]

Thus, the ALJ

determined a finding of “not disabled” appropriate under the
framework of the above cited rules, and that Mr. Spindler was not
entitled to benefits.

[R. 27]   

STANDARD OF DISABILITY ADJUDICATION
In order to be entitled to benefits under the Social
Security Act, a claimant must be evaluated under a five-step
inquiry and found to be “disabled.”

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

Step

one requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant is
employed.

Under step two, the ALJ must determine whether the

claimant has a severe impairment as defined by the Social
Security Administration.

At step three, the ALJ determines

whether the impairment meets or is medically equal to one of the
listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
During step four, the ALJ evaluates the claimant’s “Residual

18

Functional Capacity” (“RFC”) and determines whether he can
perform his past relevant work.

Finally, during step five, the

ALJ determines whether the claimant has the ability to perform
any other work that exists in the national economy.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When addressing an appeal of an ALJ’s decision, a district
court must affirm the decision if it is supported by substantial
evidence and free from legal error.

42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Steele

v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936, 940 (7th Cir. 2002).

When determining

whether the evidence is substantial, it must be “more than a mere
scintilla.”

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 401 (1971).

It is

“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.”

Id.

When reviewing the ALJ’s

decision for substantial evidence, the court cannot “displace the
ALJ’s judgment by reconsidering facts or evidence or making [a]
credibility determination.”
Cir. 2007).

Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 835 (7th

Should there be conflicting evidence that leads

reasonable minds to differ in opinion, it is solely the ALJ’s
responsibility to determine whether the claimant is disabled, not
the district court.
Cir. 1990).

Herr v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 178, 181 (7th

Even though an ALJ is not required to address every

piece of evidence in the record, she must furnish her analysis
through building a logical and accurate bridge between the
evidence and her conclusions, thus allowing a reviewing court to
conduct a meaningful review of the ultimate findings of the

19

Social Security Administration.

Sims v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 424,

429 (7th Cir. 2002); Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1176 (7th
Cir. 2001).

A court must affirm the ALJ’s decision if there is

substantial evidence supporting her decision, unless the ALJ does
not articulate the grounds for her decision in such a way that
allows a meaningful review.

Sims, 309 F.3d at 429.

ANALYSIS
Mr. Spindler raises several objections to the ALJ’s
decision; the Court will discuss each in turn.

Claimant argues

that: 1) the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) committed
reversible error by not giving the medical opinion of Dr.
Dekhtyar controlling weight, 2) the ALJ failed to weigh the
medical opinion evidence based on the requirements set out in 20
C.F.R. 404.1527(d), 3) the ALJ improperly concluded that because
Mr. Spindler was able to complete daily tasks, he was not
disabled, 4) the ALJ improperly determined that Mr. Spindler
could work based on his ability to complete very simple tasks at
home, 5) the ALJ improperly substituted her own lay opinion in
determining Mr. Spindler’s Residual Functioning Capacity (RFC),
6) the ALJ improperly determined that Mr. Spindler’s claims of
debilitation due to pain and mental limitations were not
credible, and 7) the ALJ failed to take adequately into account
how Mr. Spindler’s obesity may affect his other impairments.

20

A. WHETHER THE ALJ ERRED BY FAILING TO GIVE THE TREATING
PSYCHIATRIST’S OPINION CONTROLLING WEIGHT.
Mr. Spindler first contends that the ALJ committed
reversible error by failing to give his treating psychiatrist,
Dr. Aleksandr Dekhtyar’s, opinion controlling weight.
brief at 7.

Pl.’s

Mr. Spindler relies on two Seventh Circuit cases to

underscore that ALJs must accept the treating physician’s opinion
as controlling, or provide sound reasoning as to why he/she did
not.

See Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011);

Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2010).

Plaintiff

correctly directs the Court to such authority, however, he seems
to overlook the caveat which both cases provide, explaining that
ALJs are to treat the opinion of a treating physician as
controlling “...if it is well-supported by medically acceptable
clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not
inconsistent with other substantial evidence.”
at 710(emphasis added).

Punzio, 630 F.3d

Here, the ALJ explained that she did not

find Dr. Dekhytar’s opinion to be well-supported by clinical
findings nor consistent with other evidence, and she elaborated
upon why.
The ALJ concluded that Dr. Dekhytar’s opinion was not
supported by contemporaneous treatment notes or Plaintiff’s
testimony at the hearing [R. 22], and, accordingly, was not
entitled to controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2);
Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-2p (in order to be entitled to

21

controlling weight, a medical opinion must be rendered by a
treating source, be well-supported by medically acceptable
clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and also must not
be inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record).
Dr. Dekhtyar completed a “Mental Impairment Questionnaire
(RFC & Listings)” form in January 2009 wherein he expressed his
opinion of Mr. Spindler’s functioning, described above.
522]

[R. 513-

Significantly, when asked to describe the clinical

findings, including mental status examination results, that
demonstrated the severity of Plaintiff’s mental impairment and
symptoms, Dr. Dekhtyar only wrote “paranoia, depression,
insomnia, and nightmares,” [R. 514], which were not clinical
findings, but appear to the Court to be a recitation of Mr.
Spindler’s reported symptoms.
Additionally, when Mr. Spindler presented to Dr. Dekhtyar in
October 2008, over two years after his April 2006 alleged onset
of disability, Dr. Dekhtyar noted that Plaintiff was alert and
cooperative, with appropriate affect and spontaneous speech,
although he was sad, angry, and anxious, and had circumstantial
speech, paranoid delusions, and poor judgment. [R. 549]

Dr.

Dekhtyar subsequently saw Plaintiff in December 2008, January,
March, April, May, June, July, and August 2009.

[R. 539-547]

He

continued to report variable findings and prescribe medication.
[R. 539-549]

Notably, by March 2009, Dr. Dekhtyar observed that

Plaintiff had better grooming that day and decreased paranoia

22

with no vivid dreams.

[R. 544]

Plaintiff’s nightmares increased

in April 2009 [R. 543], but by May 2009, Plaintiff reported that
he was doing better that day and had no nightmares.
Dr. Dekhtyar indicated Plaintiff was stable.

[R. 545]

[R. 545]

Again in

June 2009, Dr. Dekhtyar noted that Plaintiff was doing better and
was stable.

[R. 542]

Considering the content of Dr. Dekhtyar’s

contemporaneous treatment notes, the ALJ reasonably concluded
that they did not support his opinion that Mr. Spindler had
severely marked limitations in functioning.
The ALJ also appropriately concluded that Dr. Dekhtyar’s
opinion was not supported by Plaintiff’s own testimony within the
record.

[R. 22]

For example, at the hearing, Plaintiff

testified that he lived with his wife and twelve-year-old
daughter.

[R. 36-37]

He was able to prepare a meal for himself,

clean the dishes by sitting at the sink, and he was able to do
laundry; He could sweep up a mess on the floor and mow the lawn
in small sections; Mr. Spindler went shopping about once every
two weeks; stated that he had one friend; went to church;
attended a band performance when his daughter played the flute;
and took care of his pet snake.

[R. 49-52]

Mr. Spindler

additionally testified to passing the day by watching television,
using the computer about once a week, and often listening to
police scanners and shortwave radio.

[R. 51, 53]

He was also in

the process of teaching himself how to play the guitar.

[R. 54]

He explained that he sold his canoe, mountain bike, and weight

23

set because he could no longer use them due to his shoulder pain.
[R. 53]

Finally, Mr. Spindler even testified to being able to

hide his mental issues from his employers, explaining how he
coped with having racing thoughts by going to the bathroom until
they ceased.

[R. 48]

He testified that, aside from his brother,

employers were never aware of his issue.

Id.

Thus, to the extent Mr. Spindler experienced some
limitation in his daily activities, it appears they were largely
the result of his physical limitations, rather than due to any
mental difficulties.

Therefore, the ALJ provided a logical

bridge leading to her conclusion that Mr. Spindler’s daily
activities did not depict an individual severely disabled by
mental impairments.

[R. 25]

The Court agrees that, because the

administrative record fails to provide substantial evidence of
Mr. Spindler’s severely disabling mental limitations, the ALJ
reasonably concluded that Dr. Dekhytar’s opinion should not be
entitled to controlling weight.
B. WHETHER THE ALJ FAILED TO PROPERLY WEIGH DR. DEKHTYAR’S
MEDICAL OPINION.
Along the same vein as the first contention, Mr. Spindler
additionally avers that the ALJ failed to gauge the credibility
of Dr. Dekhtyar’s diagnosis pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527,
which requires an ALJ to determine credibility based on factors
including the treatment relationship, the extent and nature of
the treatment, the physician’s speciality, and the consistency of

24

the treatment.

Pl.’s brief at 8-9.

Conversely, the Commissioner

argues that, contrary to Plaintiff’s claim, the ALJ properly
considered Dr. Dekhtyar’s opinion and diagnosis pursuant to the
relevant regulatory factors, specifically recognizing the
governing regulations and rulings in her decision.
The Court agrees.

Resp. at 7.

The ALJ specifically noted that Dr. Dekhtyar

only began treating Mr. Spindler in October 2008, more than two
years after his alleged onset of disability [R. 22], thus
considering the length of the treatment relationship.
C.F.R. §404.1527(d)(2)(I).

See 20

She also recorded that Mr. Spindler

was referred to Dr. Dekhtyar for mental health treatment [R. 22],
recognizing that he was a mental health specialist.

See 20

C.F.R. 404.1527(d)(5). As discussed above, the ALJ also properly
noted that this opinion of disability was not well-supported by
the record.
96-2p.

[R. 22].

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2),(3); SSR

Thus, considering the supportability factor, the Court

finds that the ALJ reasonably gave reduced weight to Dr.
Dekhtyar’s opinion because it was not well-supported. [R. 22]
While the regulation identifies a number of factors an ALJ
shall consider, it does not require that the ALJ articulate her
consideration of each and every one.

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

The regulations provide instead, that the ALJ will consider all
of the factors, and her decision will “give good reasons in our
notice of determination.”

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

The Court

agrees that the lack of record support for Dr. Dekhtyar’s opinion

25

and its inconsistency with other substantial record evidence,
along with specific examples cited in the ALJ’s decision,
constitute “good reasons” for reducing the weight of his opinion.

C. WHETHER THE ALJ IMPROPERLY SUBSTITUTED HER JUDGEMENT FOR
THAT OF MR. SPINDLER’S TREATING PSYCHIATRIST.
Along the same line of argument as above, Mr. Spindler
additionally contends that the ALJ improperly substituted her own
judgment for that of Dr. Dekhtyar’s.

Pl.’s brief at 9-12.

Mr.

Spindler argues that the ALJ dismissed Dr. Dekhtyar’s conclusions
outright, and instead employed an unidentified and unsupported
scale with regard to analyzing Mr. Spindler’s psychotic disorder.
Pl.’s brief at 10.

On the contrary, the Court finds that the ALJ

complied with the regulatory instruction on rating the degree of
Plaintiff’s functional limitations, and provided support for her
conclusion that Mr. Spindler did not meet or medically equal the
criteria of Listing 12.03.

[R. 22-23]

At step three of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ
considered Listing 12.03, Schizophrenic, Paranoid and Other
Psychotic Disorders, and found that Mr. Spindler’s mental
impairment did not meet or medically equal the criteria of the
listing.

[R. 22]

In making this finding, the ALJ considered

whether the “paragraph B” criteria are satisfied, properly

26

applying the special technique described in 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520a.

[R. 22-23]

In order to meet Part B of Listing 12.03,

Plaintiff’s impairment must result in at least two of the
following:
1. Marked restriction of activities of daily living; or
2. Marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning; or
3. Marked difficulties in maintaining concentration,
persistence, or pace; or
4. Repeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended
duration.
Listings 12.03, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
The ALJ noted that the phrase “marked limitation” means “more
than moderate but less than extreme.”

[R. 22]

Repeated episodes

of decompensation, each of extended duration, means “three
episodes within 1 year, or an average of once every 4 months,
each lasting for at least 2 weeks.”

Id.

With that, the ALJ reasonably concluded that, with regard to
activities of daily living, Mr. Spindler’s mental impairment
resulted in a mild limitation, as he testified to doing some
chores, going to the store every two weeks, and caring for a
snake.

[R. 23]

With regard to social functioning, the ALJ

determined him to have moderate difficulties, as he testified to
having one friend and going to church on Sunday.

Id.

With

regard to concentration, persistence or pace, the ALJ determined
him to have mild difficulties, as he testified to being able to

27

use a computer, listen to radio scanners, watch televison, and is
learning to play the guitar.

Id.

As for episodes of repeated

decompensation of extended duration, the ALJ determined that Mr.
Spindler had none, as the record provided no indication of
hospitalization or inpatient treatment for mental problems. [R.
23].
According to the Seventh Circuit authority Mr. Spindler
cites, the ALJ appropriately came to the conclusion that Mr.
Spindler is not disabled as a result of his mental impairment.
See Richards v. Astrue, 370 F. Appx. 727, 730 (7th Cir.
2010)(holding that if there are no episodes of decompensation and
the rating in each of the categories is none or mild, the
impairment generally is not considered severe and the claimant
thus is not disabled).

The responsibility for deciding the issue

of whether a claimant’s impairment meets or equals a listing is
explicitly reserved to the Commissioner, and a medical source
opinion on this issue is not entitled to any special
significance. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2), (3).

The ALJ was not

required to grant controlling weight to Dr. Dekhtyar’s opinion
that Plaintiff had marked limitations, she analyzed and discussed
the record evidence, and reasonably concluded that Plaintiff did
not have a listing-level impairment.

The Court agrees, finding

the ALJ’s decision supported by substantial evidence, free from
legal error.

28

Finally, Mr. Spindler complains that the ALJ did not obtain a
third-party psychiatric evaluation, Pl.’s brief at 11, however,
Plaintiff ignores the fact that he initially alleged disability
based upon physical impairments. [R. 140, 172, 182] The record
reflects that Mr. Spindler’s mental health treatment was made known
to the Agency only at the hearing before the ALJ, and Plaintiff,
through counsel, acknowledged that he had not yet submitted any
mental health treatment records, stating, “I am sorry. I should
have told you about that.” [R. 47]
appear that Mr.

Significantly, it does not

Spindler, represented by counsel, ever requested

a psychiatric consultative examination or additional input from a
mental health professional.

Considering these circumstances, the

Court finds it disingenuous to now fault the ALJ for not developing
the record regarding Plaintiff’s mental condition.
D. WHETHER THE ALJ IMPROPERLY DETERMINED PLAINTIFF NOT
DISABLED BASED ON HIS BEHAVIOR AT HOME
Next, Mr. Spindler contends that the ALJ conflated his basic
home

skills

and

improperly

concluded

that

he

possessed

abilities necessary to participate in the workforce.

the

Pl.’s brief

12-13. Plaintiff relies upon Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640, 647
(7th Cir. 2012), wherein the Court clarified that a claimant’s
ability to perform daily minimal tasks is not inconsistent with his
disability being severe.

Although Mr. Spindler is correct to

caution that activities of daily living and activities of a full-

29

time job are not equal, the Court finds that the ALJ did not
improperly consider his home behaviors.

[R. 24]

At the hearing, Plaintiff testified to being able to take on
a menagerie of daily life tasks including: prepare a meal for
himself; do dishes by sitting at the sink; do laundry; sweep up a
mess on the floor; mow the lawn in small sections; go grocery
shopping about once every two weeks; go to church; attend a band
performance when his daughter played; give water to his dog; take
care of his snake; watch television; order radios off Craigslist;
browse the internet; listen to police scanners and shortwave radio;
and he was in the process of teaching himself how to play the
guitar.

[R. 49-54]

Mr. Spindler’s attempt to now diminish the

necessary motor, mental, and social skills necessary to perform the
daily activities he regularly takes on is unavailing.

The ALJ

permissibly considered Plaintiff’s daily activities, 20 C.F.R. §
404.1529(c)(3)(I), and reasonably concluded that they supported a
finding that he could perform a range of sedentary work.
E. WHETHER THE ALJ FAILED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF HER
DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S RFC.
Next, Mr. Spindler argues that the ALJ failed to provide an
adequate explanation for how she determined Mr. Spindler’s RFC,
that her finding is not supported by substantial evidence because
it was not based on the medical records, and that she took no steps
to compile his complete medical history.”
The

Commissioner

counters

that

30

the

Pl.’s brief at 13-16.

ALJ’s

residual

functional

capacity is not based on any single opinion and is, instead, based
on all the relevant evidence in the case record as a whole.
C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).

See 20

The Court agrees and finds that the ALJ

clearly supported her decision with the medical evidence of record.
The ALJ considered and discussed Plaintiff’s treatment history
as

well

as

the

record

Nepomuceno’s opinion.
little

weight

to

physician

[R. 21-25]

Dr.

opinions,

including

Dr.

The ALJ explained that she gave

Nepomuceno’s

opinion

that

Mr.

Spindler

experienced several work-related limitations due to sleep apnea
because he did not explain how, when successfully treated, his
sleep apnea precluded work activity.

[R. 25]

Contrary to

Plaintiff’s claim, the ALJ was not required to re-contact Dr.
Nepomuceno, as the ALJ did not indicate that the basis for Dr.
Nepomuceno’s opinion was unclear or that there were ambiguities in
the evidence or that the evidence was inadequate to determine
whether Plaintiff was disabled.

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(e).

Instead, she correctly found that Dr. Nepomuceno’s opinion was not
supported by, and was inconsistent with, the treatment records
showing that Plaintiff’s sleep apnea was now well controlled. [R.
25]

See Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500, 504 (7th Cir. 2004)

(“An ALJ need recontact medical sources only when the evidence
received

is

inadequate

to

determine

whether

the

claimant

is

disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(e). Here, the evidence was
adequate for the ALJ to find Skarbek not disabled, and the ALJ

31

acted within his discretion in deciding not to call a medical
expert.”).
With regard to his cardiac condition, Mr. Spindler opines that
the ALJ reached her conclusion without medical support there, as
well.

Pl.’s brief at 15.

However, the Court finds that the ALJ

also discussed Plaintiff’s cardiac condition, finding his obesity
to be a severe impairment. [R. 21, 25] Considering all the record
evidence, the ALJ reasonably concluded that neither the existence
of his cardiac condition, nor his obesity, precluded his performing
a range of sedentary work.

Contrary to Plaintiff’s claim, the

ALJ’s finding was not without medical support.

Notably, Drs.

Aquino and Kenney, state agency physicians, reviewed the record
evidence

in

February

2008

and

June

2008,

respectively,

and

concluded that Plaintiff could perform a range of light exertional
work. [R. 384-91, 490-92]

Significantly, Dr. Aquino explicitly

noted Mr. Spindler’s sleep apnea, cardiac condition, and BMI of 42.
[R. 391]

Rather than adopt this one assessment, the ALJ looked to

the totality of the medical evidence and found that Mr. Spindler
was further functionally limited, and restricted him to performing
a range of sedentary work, the least exertional level of work, with
a sit/stand at will option.
Lastly, Mr. Spindler, again, asserts that the ALJ failed to
develop the record, stating that she was responsible for soliciting
additional information and developing a complete medical history.
Pl.’s brief at 13.

Yet, the Court finds no indication that the

32

record evidence was not complete.

At the hearing, the ALJ asked

Plaintiff’s counsel, “. . . anything missing from the file that you
believe is essential to this case?”. [R. 35]

Plaintiff’s attorney

discussed some MRIs on a CD and expressly stated “. . . but that’s
the only thing that is missing.”

To that the ALJ stated that she

would leave the record open for thirty days. [R. 35-36]

Later in

the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he would also submit
Plaintiff’s mental health records. [R. 47]

After the hearing,

Plaintiff, through counsel, submitted the additional evidence. [R.
533-549]
The Court finds Mr. Spindler’s suggestion that the ALJ should
not have relied on his counsel’s express assertion, but should have
expended additional time and resources and conducted her own search
for additional evidence unacceptable. Mr. Spindler’s reliance upon
Richards, 370 Fed. Appx. at 731, stating that the ALJ “has a duty
to solicit additional information to flesh out an opinion for which
the medical support is not readily discernable”, is unavailing as
here, the ALJ clearly discerned the medical support and used it to
inform her conclusion. Her conclusion happened to not be the exact
same as that of Dr. Nepomuceno’s, however, the Court finds that she
adequately reached and explained it nonetheless.
F. WHETHER THE ALJ INCORRECTLY ANALYZED THE CREDIBILITY OF
PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY REGARDING HIS DAILY ACTIVITIES
Mr. Spindler next avers that the ALJ ignored his limitations
and omitted facts that lend credibility to his claims.

33

Pl.’s

brief at 16-18.

He contends that the ALJ described his

performance of various daily activities as inconsistent with his
claims of disabling pain and mental limitation, but failed to say
how they are inconsistent.

He relies upon the Seventh Circuit

holding in Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 887 (7th Cir. 2001),
that an ALJ must provide a detailed explanation when she
determines inconsistencies.

Mr. Spindler’s reliance upon

Zurawski is misplaced, as he misses the point that, not only did
the ALJ provide the explanation Zurawski demands, but that there
is another long held stance of the Seventh Circuit, which is that
an ALJ’s credibility findings are entitled to considerable
deference.
In Imani ex rel. Hayes v. Heckler, 797 F.2d 508, 512 (7th
Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 988 (1986), the Court
articulated its well-established rule that ALJs’ credibility
determinations will not be overturned unless “patently wrong.”
In Powers v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 431, 435 (7th Cir. 2000), the Court
reiterated that “[b]ecause hearing officers are in the best
position to see and hear the witnesses and assess their
forthrightness, we afford their credibility determinations
special deference.... We will reverse an ALJ's credibility
determination only if the claimant can show it was ‘patently
wrong.’” (Citations omitted).

The Court further observed that,

although an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints
“solely because they are not fully supported by the medical

34

[evidence, the ALJ] may consider that as probative of the
claimant’s credibility.” Id. (Citation omitted).
Here, the ALJ properly assessed the credibility of Mr.
Spindler’s complaints, properly considered his daily activities,
20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(I), (the listing of which has already
been repeated twice above), and reasonably concluded that they
supported a finding that he could perform a range of sedentary
work with a sit/stand at will option.

The ALJ even discussed

Plaintiff’s course of medical treatment, including his
noncompliant use of prescribed medication, and testimony
regarding his limitations.

[R. 21, 24-25] Accordingly, she

limited him to a range of sedentary work.

The ALJ appropriately

evaluated Plaintiff’s credibility and reasonably concluded that
Plaintiff’s subjective allegations of severely disabling
limitations were not credible.
Because the ALJ properly and thoroughly grounded her
analysis in the evidence of record, her conclusion is not
patently wrong, is entitled to substantial deference, and the
Court finds that it should be upheld. Jens v. Barnhart, 347 F.3d
209, 213 (7th Cir. 2003); Shramek, 226 F.3d at 811; Steward v.
Bowen, 858 F.2d 1295, 1302 (7th Cir. 1988); Ray v. Bowen, 843
F.2d 998, 1002 (7th Cir. 1988).
G. WHETHER THE ALJ FAILED TO CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S OBESITY’s
AFFECT UPON HIS DISABILITY.

35

Lastly, Mr. Spindler argues that the case requires remand
for additional review, as the ALJ gave only a cursory examination
of his obesity and its impact on his other impairments.
brief at 18-19.

Pl.’s

Indeed, the Commissioner requires that ALJs

evaluate a claimants’ obesity in combination with the other
impairments listed in his medical history.

SSR 02-1p.

Although

the ALJ did not explicitly mention Social Security Ruling 02-1p
during her evaluation of Mr. Spindler’s obesity, she,
nonetheless, found his obesity to be a severe impairment. [R. 21]
Moreover, the ALJ reasonably concluded that the combination of
his obesity, along with the existence of his cardiac condition
and all of his other severe impairments, restricted him to
performing a range of sedentary work.

The ALJ’s failure to

specifically mention how Mr. Spindler’s obesity limits him does
not constitute reversible error.

Mr. Spindler failed to show

that he experienced additional functional limitations resulting
from his obesity that were not already accommodated by the ALJ.
Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ appropriately considered Mr.
Spindler’s obesity, as well as its impact when combined with his
other severe impairments, and that substantial evidence supports
her conclusion that it did not preclude him from certain
sedentary work.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment is denied, and the Commissioner’s motion for

36

summary judgment is granted. The decision of the Commissioner is
affirmed.

Dated: December 28, 2012

ENTER:
__________________________________
ARLANDER KEYS
United States Magistrate Judge

37