Teeling v. Colvin
Filing
26
ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 12/15/2014: Civil case terminated.Mailed notice(wp, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHER DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CHARLENE M. TEELING,
Case No. 13 C 6951
Plaintiff,
v.
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Charlene M. Teeling (“Teeling”) seeks review of a
final
decision
of
the
Commissioner
of
the
Social
Security
Administration (the “Commissioner”) denying her application for
disability insurance benefits.
Teeling asks the Court to reverse
or remand the Commissioner’s decision on the ground that the
Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) who heard her claim erred by
declining
to
accept
as
credible
her
subjective
complaints
regarding the extent of her alleged physical limitations.
The
Commissioner, on the other hand, seeks an order affirming the
decision.
For the reasons stated herein, Teeling’s Motion is
denied and the Commissioner’s Motion is granted.
I.
On
November
disability
disabled
insurance
on
initially,
9,
October
which
BACKGROUND
2010,
Teeling
benefits,
19,
filed
alleging
for
had
become
application
was
denied
Her
was
affirmed
that
application
she
2006.
decision
an
upon
reconsideration.
Thereafter, Teeling sought a hearing before an ALJ.
A.
The ALJ Hearing
On April 3, 2012, a hearing was convened at which Teeling
appeared with the assistance of counsel.
At the time of the
hearing, Teeling was fifty-five years old, 5’5”, and weighed 218
pounds.
Teeling testified that she had a ninth grade education
and that she had not worked since 2008.
From 1999 until 2006,
Teeling was employed full-time as a manager at a Kmart store,
where
her
duties
included
supervising
working at the service desk.
checkout
operators
and
The job required her to be on her
feet all day and occasionally involved lifting items weighing up
to sixty pounds.
In 2006, Teeling was laid off from her job at Kmart.
After
that, she stated that her only other history of employment was a
stint in 2008 as a part-time school cafeteria aide with the
Valley View School District.
Teeling was forced to leave that
job after only a month, however, because she felt that she could
no longer stand on her feet for long periods of time and she
- 2 -
believed
that
the
job
was
contributing
to
her
high
blood
pressure.
Teeling testified that she had been plagued with numerous
health issues over the preceding sixteen years, including back,
knee, foot, shoulder, and leg pain, as well as heart disease and
other serious conditions.
She stated that she had scoliosis in
her upper back, a ruptured disc in her neck, which was the result
of a car accident that occurred twenty-seven years prior to the
hearing, and a herniated disc in her lower back, which she had
injured by bending over the wrong way.
Teeling described her
neck and back pain as being “constant,” and stated that her pain
was
between
“eight”
to
“nine”
on
a
scale
of
zero
to
ten.
Although her doctors recommended surgery, Teeling indicated that
she had elected not to undergo any procedure because she was
afraid that a positive result would be uncertain.
that she
took
various
medications
to
alleviate
She stated
her
pain
and
occasionally used a traction unit, Styrofoam roller, and other
home therapies.
In addition to her neck and back problems, Teeling testified
that she had experienced constant leg and knee pain for the past
fifteen
years.
Although
she
had
undergone
several
knee
surgeries, she reported that her legs tired easily and that her
knees often would give out due to lack of adequate circulation.
She described her leg pain as being a “seven” on the pain-scale,
- 3 -
but that occasionally it got so bad that it felt like a “ten.”
At times, Teeling would be in so much pain that she could not
walk.
Teeling also stated that she experienced foot pain, which
she explained was the result of her car accident, during which
her ankle was “totally crushed” and her right foot was “broken in
half.”
As a consequence, she no longer could bend her right foot
properly.
At times, it would “lock up” entirely causing her to
lose her balance and fall.
Teeling stated that she had undergone
an MRI, but that her doctor had not recommended any particular
course
of
treatment.
She
described
her
foot
pain
as
being
constant, with a pain-scale rating of “six.”
Teeling further reported that she had developed shoulder
problems in 2009 or 2010.
surgery
twice
on
her
Despite
those
surgeries,
She stated that she had undergone
right
shoulder
however,
and
Teeling
once
on
testified
her
left.
that
she
continued to have limited movement and strength in her arms.
Teeling also noted that she suffered from neck discomfort and
headaches, which she indicated were connected to her arm and
shoulder problems.
Teeling described her pain as being a “five”
or “six” on the pain-scale.
Nonetheless, she stated that she
achieved partial relief through a combination of Vicodin and
various therapeutic exercises.
- 4 -
Teeling also testified that she suffered from serious heart
problems.
At around the time she left her job at Kmart, she had
two stents placed in one of the arteries to her heart in an
effort to alleviate a 90 percent blockage.
She stated that she
also had at least four other less severe blockages.
In addition to her heart condition, Teeling complained of a
variety of other medical issues, including sinus problems, Gastro
Esophageal Reflux Disease (“GERD”), and bile leakage, all of
which apparently were controlled by medication.
Teeling further
indicated that she suffered from bronchial asthma, which was
aggravated
by
pollen,
weather
chemical cleaning solutions.
changes,
fumes,
and
certain
She also noted that she smoked half
a pack of cigarettes per day, but that she was in the process of
quitting.
She stated that she experienced shortness of breath
and that she would need to use an inhaler after walking even
short distances.
Teeling further testified that she had been
diagnosed with sleep apnea, but stated that she did not use a
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (“CPAP”) machine because she
was claustrophobic.
At the time of the hearing, Teeling was taking numerous
medications, including Toprol (a beta-blocker), Lisinopril (an
ACE
inhibitor),
Norvasc
(a
blood
pressure
medication),
Nitroglycerine (an angina medication), Isosorbide (another angina
medication), Aspirin, Zocor (a cholesterol medication), Xanax (an
- 5 -
anxiety
medication),
Carafate
(an
anti-ulcer
medication),
an
albuterol sulfate inhaler (for asthma), Flonase (a nasal spray
for allergy relief), Vicodin (a pain medication), Cholestyramine
(a bile acid sequestrant), and Prilosec (a drug used to treat
symptoms of GERD).
With regard to her alleged functional limitations, Teeling
testified that she had a reduced range of arm motion and that she
could not lift her arms higher than her head or grab items
anywhere other than at chest level.
She stated that she was
capable of lifting items that weighed as much as a gallon of
milk, but noted that she was unable to carry around an object of
that weight for any extended period of time.
Teeling further
stated that, while she could carry around lighter objects, such
as a paper file, she otherwise had no control over the strength
in her arms.
To that end, Teeling indicated that she relied on
her husband to assist with grocery shopping and to lift or move
heavier items around the house.
Teeling testified that she also experienced some difficulty
performing basic household chores.
Although she was able to do
laundry, she would need her husband’s help carrying clothes to
the washer.
Similarly, while she was capable of preparing meals,
she would ask her son or his girlfriend to load the food into the
oven.
She stated that she also relied on her son to vacuum and
take out the trash.
- 6 -
Teeling further testified that walking for more than half an
hour
would
aggravate
her
back,
leg,
knee,
and
foot
pain.
Likewise, she stated that she was unable to sit in one position
for longer than half an hour, after which she would need to get
up and move to a different position.
Teeling noted that her
ailments also had affected her sleeping and her ability to drive.
She stated that, although she was capable of operating a car, she
felt it necessary to limit herself to shorter drives.
Teeling
further
complained
picking up items off the floor.
of
difficulty
squatting
and
She stated that she would become
so fatigued at various points throughout the day that she would
need to rest in a recliner in order to recover.
On a typical
day, she spent most of her time sitting in her recliner, getting
up only occasionally to walk around.
A vocational expert (“VE”) also testified at the hearing.
The
VE
described
Teeling’s
past
position
at
Kmart
as
skilled to semi-skilled work at a light exertional level.
being
The VE
noted, however, that Teeling had claimed to perform tasks that
would indicate that she had been working at a medium exertional
level.
With regard to Teeling’s brief time as a school cafeteria
aide, the VE classified this position as being unskilled work at
a light exertional level.
The ALJ then posed a number of hypothetical questions to the
VE.
First, the ALJ asked the VE to consider the vocational
- 7 -
capacity of an individual who could lift or carry twenty pounds
occasionally, lift or carry ten pounds frequently, stand or walk
for six hours out of an eight-hour workday, sit six hours out of
an eight-hour workday, push and pull without limitation, reach
overhead
only
scaffolds,
hazards,
occasionally,
and
have
fumes,
irritants.
only
odors,
never
limited
dusts,
climb
ladders,
exposure
gases,
to
and
ropes,
extreme
other
or
cold,
pulmonary
The VE testified that a person with those limitations
would be capable of performing Teeling’s past work as a Kmart
manager/cashier-checker as such a position would be performed
generally in the national economy.
Next, the ALJ asked the VE to opine as to the vocational
capabilities of a person who could lift up to ten pounds, lift or
carry on an occasional basis items such as docket files, ledgers,
and small tools, stand or walk for two hours out of an eight-hour
day, sit six hours out of an eight-hour day, push
frequently,
reach
overhead
only
occasionally,
and pull
never
climb
ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and have limited exposure to cold,
hazards,
fumes,
irritants.
to
odors,
dusts,
gasses,
and
other
pulmonary
The VE answered that such a person would not be able
perform
Teeling’s
past
work
as
such
work
is
performed
generally in the national economy.
The
ALJ
hypothetical
next
asked
functional
the
VE
capacity
- 8 -
whether,
as
her
assuming
previous
the
same
example,
a
person of Teeling’s age, education, and work experience could
perform any other occupation that existed in significant numbers
in the national economy.
To this question, the VE testified that
such an individual could work as an information clerk (DOT No.
237367056), an order clerk (DOT No. 209567014), or an interview
clerk (DOT No. 205367014).
Finally,
the
ALJ
asked
the
VE
whether
any
occupations
existed for an individual with the same characteristics as the
previous example, but who also was limited by having to recline
frequently throughout the day.
The VE answered that no such jobs
existed.
B.
The ALJ’s Decision
In a written decision dated June 19, 2012, the ALJ denied
Teeling’s claim on the ground that she was not disabled within
the meaning of the Social Security Act.
Applying the five-step
sequential analysis as required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and
416.920, the ALJ found at Step One that Teeling had not engaged
in
substantial
onset
date.
gainful
At
Step
activity
Two,
since
the
ALJ
the
alleged
determined
suffered from the following severe impairments:
disability
that
Teeling
degenerative
joint disease of the right knee, history of left rotator cuff
tear, degenerative joint disease of the right shoulder, coronary
artery disease, degenerative disc disease, asthma, hypertension,
and obesity.
At Step Three, the ALJ concluded that none of
- 9 -
Teeling’s impairments, alone or in combination, met or medically
equaled any criteria considered to be automatically disabling
under
the
Social
Impairments,
“Listings”).
20
Security
C.F.R.
Part
Administration’s
404,
Subpart
P,
Listing
Appendix
1
of
(the
At Step Four, the ALJ determined that Teeling had
the residual functional capacity to perform a range of light
work.
Specifically, the ALJ found that Teeling
could occasionally lift and/or carry twenty
pounds, frequently lift and/or carry ten
pounds, stand and/or walk for six hours out
of an eight-hour workday, sit for six hours
out of an eight-hour workday, and push and
pull on a frequent basis, but was limited to
occasional overhead reaching with the upper
extremities bilaterally.
The ALJ further found that Teeling should never climb ladders,
ropes, or
scaffolds,
and
that
her
exposure
to
extreme
cold,
hazards, fumes, odors, dusts, gasses, poor ventilation, and other
pulmonary
irritants
should
be
limited.
In
arriving
at
that
determination, the ALJ explained that she did not find credible
Teeling’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and
limiting effects of her symptoms because her testimony in that
regard
was
inconsistent
with
the
objective evidence in the case.
the
ALJ
determined
that
medical
reports
and
other
Based upon the VE’s testimony,
Teeling
had
the
residual
functional
capacity to perform her past relevant work as a manager/cashierchecker at Kmart.
Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Teeling
- 10 -
was not disabled under the Social Security Act and ended her
analysis at Step Four.
C.
Appeals Council
On August 22, 2012, Teeling filed a request seeking review
of
the
ALJ’s
decision.
The
Appeals
Council
denied
that
application on July 26, 2013, and this action ensued.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
To establish a disability under the Social Security Act, a
claimant must demonstrate that she has a medically determinable
physical or mental impairment that renders her unable to engage
in substantial gainful work.
42 U.S.C. § 423(d).
In determining
whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ is required to apply the
five-step sequential evaluation process under which the following
must
be
considered:
(1)
whether
the
claimant
is
employed
currently; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3)
whether the claimant’s impairment is one that meets or medically
equals the severity criteria set forth in the Listings; (4) if
the claimant’s impairment does not meet that criteria, whether
she can perform her past relevant work; and (5) whether the
claimant is capable of performing any other work in the national
economy.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503,
512-13 (7th Cir. 2009).
The claimant bears the burden of proof with respect to the
first four steps of this analysis.
- 11 -
Briscoe v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d
345, 352 (7th Cir. 2005).
If the ALJ determines at any one of
these initial four steps that the claimant is disabled or not
disabled, she is not required to proceed further.
§ 404.1520(a)(4).
20 C.F.R.
If, however, the claimant sustains her burden
of proof for the first four steps, the burden shifts at Step Five
to the Commissioner, “who must then present evidence establishing
that the claimant possesses the residual functional capacity to
perform
work
that
national economy.”
exists
in
a
significant
quantity
in
the
Perry v. Colvin, 945 F.Supp.2d 949, 963 (N.D.
Ill. 2013).
Where, as here, the Appeals Council denies review, the ALJ’s
determination stands as the Commissioner’s final decision, which
may
be
challenged
§ 405(g).
review
is
in
federal
court
pursuant
20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1455, 416.1481.
limited
to
assessing
whether
to
42
U.S.C.
The district court’s
the
ALJ
applied
the
correct legal standards and whether her decision is supported by
“substantial evidence.”
See, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
“Substantial
evidence” is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
478 F.3d 836, 841 (7th Cir. 2007).
Skinner v. Astrue,
Even if “reasonable minds
could differ concerning whether [the claimant] is disabled,” the
ALJ’s determination will be upheld as long as her decision has
“adequate
support”
in
the
record.
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
- 12 -
Simila,
573
F.3d
at
513
Although this standard of review is deferential, the Court
cannot simply “rubber stamp” the Commissioner’s determination.
Scott v. Barnhart, 297 F.3d 589, 593 (7th Cir.2002).
Rather, the
Court at least must be able to discern a “logical bridge” between
the evidence
and
the
ALJ’s
ultimate
conclusion.
Chater, 78 F.3d 305, 307 (7th Cir. 1996).
Sarchet
v.
The ALJ need not
address “every piece of evidence or testimony in the record,”
however, Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 889 (7th Cir. 2001),
so
long
as
she
“minimally
articulate[s]
[her]
crediting or rejecting evidence of disability.”
reasons
for
Clifford v.
Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 870 (7th Cir. 2000).
III.
ANALYSIS
Teeling’s sole argument on appeal is that the ALJ failed to
provide an adequate explanation for why she discredited portions
of
Teeling’s
testimony
regarding
the
extent
of
her
alleged
limitations.
Teeling complains that the ALJ’s stated findings in
that
are
regard
credibility
undeveloped
analysis
and
factors
set
offer
forth
no
in
insight
Social
into
the
Security
Ruling 96-7p (“SSR 96-7p”).
On review, the ALJ’s credibility determination is to be
accorded “special deference” and will not be overturned unless it
is “patently wrong.”
Cir. 2010).
Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1160 (7th
In assessing a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ must
consider “the entire case record, including the objective medical
- 13 -
evidence,
the
statements
and
individual’s
other
own
information
statements
about
provided
by
symptoms,
treating
or
examining physicians or psychologists and other persons about the
symptoms and how they affect the individual, and other relevant
evidence in the case record.”
Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816,
823 (7th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
The ALJ also must take
into account several other factors, “including the claimant’s
daily activities, her level of pain or symptoms, aggravating
factors, medication, treatment, and limitations.”
Villano v.
Astrue, 556 F.3d 558, 562 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1529(c) and SSR 96–7p).
Although the ALJ must support her
credibility finding with “specific reasons,” id., her opinion
need not include a “complete written evaluation of every piece of
evidence.”
Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 362 (7th Cir. 2013)
(citation omitted).
Teeling’s
primary
objection
to
the
ALJ’s
credibility
determination arises from the ALJ’s use of the oft-criticized
phrase
that
Teeling’s
“statements
concerning
the
intensity,
persistence and limiting effects of [her] symptoms [were] not
credible to the extent they [were] inconsistent with” the ALJ’s
residual
functional
capacity
assessment.
While
the
Seventh
Circuit has voiced with some frequency its disapproval of this
conclusory language, see, e.g., Pierce v. Colvin, 793 F.3d 1046,
1050 (7th Cir. 2014), the use of such boilerplate “does not
- 14 -
automatically
conclusion
undermine
if
[s]he
or
discredit
otherwise
the
points
to
justifies [her] credibility determination.”
ALJ’s
ultimate
information
that
Pepper, 712 F.3d at
367-68; see also, Schomas v. Colvin, 732 F.3d 702, 708 (7th Cir.
2013).
Here, despite the inclusion of some boilerplate language,
the ALJ’s opinion cited a variety of specific evidence in support
of her credibility finding.
First, the ALJ noted that Teeling’s
testimony regarding her chest pain was rebutted to a significant
extent
by
the
evaluations
of
her
treating
physicians,
whose
records indicated that Teeling’s complaints of chest pain were
only “intermittent and varied.”
For example, Teeling reported
that she experienced chest pain at appointments in February and
May of 2008, but denied having any such pain at all in August
2007, September 2008, and January 2010.
Second, while Teeling
claimed to have experienced a marked increase in back pain in
2011, the ALJ noted that a physical examination at that time
revealed no
pain
with
palpation
of
the
thoracic
or
cervical
spine, intact deep tendon reflexes, and negative straight leg
raising.
Third, the ALJ found Teeling’s testimony regarding the
severity of her shoulder and arm limitations to be inconsistent
with medical reports that indicated that she had been “doing
well” with her right shoulder following surgery.
noted
that,
although
Teeling
continued
- 15 -
to
The ALJ further
experience
left
shoulder pain with abduction, she had reported experiencing less
pain
with
other
ranges
of
motion.
Fourth,
with
regard
to
Teeling’s knee pain, which she had alleged was “constant,” the
ALJ
found
it
significant
that
radiographic
imaging
revealed
nothing more than minimal degenerative changes and no evidence of
fracture or dislocation.
The ALJ also noted that Teeling had
never even complained of right knee pain until April 2011, which
was after the date she was last eligible to receive benefits –
and, even then, a physical examination suggested that Teeling had
retained
a
good
range
neurovascularly intact.
of
motion
and
that
her
knee
was
Fifth, the ALJ expressed doubt as to the
extent of Teeling’s claimed respiratory limitations in light of
the fact that, despite her condition, “she was able to smoke a
pack of cigarettes [sic] a day throughout the period at issue.”
In
addition
to
the
material
inconsistencies
between
Teeling’s statements and the medical evidence, the ALJ offered
several
other
lacking
in
although
reasons
for
why
credibility.
Teeling
claimed
For
at
she
found
instance,
the
hearing
Teeling’s
the
ALJ
not
testimony
noted
to
that,
have
worked
anywhere besides Kmart or the Valley View School District, the
record contained statements by Teeling to treating physicians
that revealed that she also had been working in her home for a
cable company throughout the period at issue.
contends that
her
comments
in
that
- 16 -
regard
While Teeling
should
be
ignored
because they appear only in “boilerplate language in a section of
[her] cardiologist[’s] notes that w[ere] apparently not updated
over time,” (Mem. in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. to Reverse or Remand
(“Teeling Mem.”) at 10, ECF No. 12), the Court fails to see how
that is a basis for disregarding this evidence.
Social Security
law does not prohibit physicians from using boilerplate in their
treatment notes and, in any event, Teeling does not deny having
made the comments.
Her statements are a part of the record and
the ALJ was entitled to consider them in assessing her overall
credibility.
The
ALJ
also
found
Teeling’s
statements
that
she
spent
“nearly all day in a reclining chair” to be at odds with other
evidence
that
lifestyle.
suggested
she
was
capable
of
a
more
active
In particular, the ALJ noted that Teeling had engaged
in activities such as “taking care of her grandchildren when they
are sick.”
Although Teeling argues that this evidence “doesn’t
tell us much” because there is nothing to indicate whether caring
for
her
grandchildren
was
anything
more
than
a
one-time
occurrence, (Teeling Mem. at 10), it nevertheless counts against
Teeling when considered in the context of the record as a whole.
In sum, the ALJ offered ample reasons for why she found
Teeling’s
testimony
to
be
inconsistent
with
other
objective
record evidence and her opinion provided a clear explanation of
the factors that contributed to her credibility assessment.
- 17 -
Her
determination
in
that
regard
was
supported
by
substantial
evidence.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Commissioner’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [ECF No. 19] is granted and Teeling’s Motion
[ECF Nos. 11 & 12] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
Dated:12/15/2014
- 18 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?