Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security
OPINION AND ORDER: The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 2/1/2017. (lhc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
KATHY L. THOMPSON,
Acting Commissioner of the Social
CAUSE NO.: 1:15-CV-295-TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
The Plaintiff, Kathy L. Thompson, seeks review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her application for Disability
Insurance Benefits. She claims that she is unable to work due to a combination of physical and
This case has a procedural history spanning over a decade. In September 2004, the
Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), alleging an onset date of
December 20, 1998. (R. 553.) The next month, the Plaintiff filed an application for Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). (R. 515.) The Plaintiff’s claims for SSI and DIB were denied in
January 2005 and upon reconsideration in March 2005. (R. 44–48, 51–57.) Thereafter, a hearing
was held before the ALJ in November 2005, who issued an unfavorable decision in February
2006. (R. 563.) Upon review before the Appeals Council (“AC”) in December 2006, the AC
vacated the ALJ’s decision and remanded because the recording of the hearing was inaudible.
(R. 540, 548.)
A hearing was held before a different ALJ in April 2007, who issued an unfavorable
decision in September 2007. (R. 19–33, 523, 710–30, 803.) The Plaintiff sought review of the
ALJ’s 2007 decision by the AC, which denied review in August 2008, making the ALJ’s
decision the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.981. Then, the Plaintiff
sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) in this District. In September 2009, Magistrate
Judge Cosbey reversed the ALJ’s decision for not adequately considering the Plaintiff’s doctor’s
opinions regarding her mental limitations, as well as non-severe impairments. (R. 791–92.) The
Magistrate remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.
In January 2010, the ALJ held a hearing pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s remand order.
In September 2010, the ALJ issued a partially favorable decision in which he found that the
Plaintiff was not disabled through March 13, 2008, but was disabled after that date. (R. 741–53.)
The Plaintiff sought review of the ALJ’s 2010 decision by the AC, which denied review in
March 2012, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §
404.981. Again, the Plaintiff sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) in this District, but
in February 2013, the parties jointly stipulated to remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). (R. 953.) In March 2014, the AC reversed the ALJ and directed him to “reevaluate the
claimant’s mental impairments at step two and continue through the sequential evaluation
process; reassess the claimant’s mental/physical RFC and obtain supplemental vocational expert
(“VE”) testimony to assist in determining what jobs exist in significant numbers for the
claimant.” (R. 950–52.) The AC remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.
In August 2014, the Plaintiff appeared for a hearing before the ALJ, who issued an
unfavorable decision in September 2014. The ALJ again found that the Plaintiff was not disabled
through March 13, 2008, but was disabled after that date. (R. 916–27.) The Plaintiff sought
review of the ALJ’s 2014 decision from the AC, which denied review in August 2015, making
the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.981. The
Plaintiff now seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
THE ALJ’S FINDINGS
The Social Security regulations set forth a five-step sequential evaluation process to be
used in determining whether the claimant has established a disability. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v); see also 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A) (defining a disability under the Social
Security Act as being unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any
medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death
or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12
months”); id. § 423(d)(2)(A) (requiring an applicant to show that his “impairments are of such
severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age,
education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which
exists in the national economy”). The first step is to determine whether the claimant is presently
engaged in substantial gainful activity (SGA). Here, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff was not
engaged in SGA, so she moved to the second step, which is to determine whether the claimant
had a “severe” impairment or combination of impairments.
An impairment is “severe” if it significantly limits the claimant’s physical or mental
ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(a). The ALJ determined that the
Plaintiff’s severe impairments were degenerative arthritis of the right knee, bilateral ankle pain
and instability status post surgeries, and obesity, all of which caused more than minimal
limitation to her ability to perform work activities. But the ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff’s
mental impairments of depression and anxiety/panic disorder were not severe impairments
because they caused no more than minimal limitations in her ability to perform basic workrelated activities. In accordance with the AC’s Remand Order, the ALJ explained that Dr. Link’s
assessment of the Plaintiff, wherein he found that she was “functioning at a moderate level of
impair[ment],” was not given great weight. (R. 920.) First, Dr. Link’s statements were not based
on medical sources, but on the Plaintiff’s subjective statements. Second, the Plaintiff’s inability
to “attend for less than 15 minutes” was not contradicted by Dr. Link’s report itself, which
showed that the Plaintiff had fair attention capacity. (Id.) Third, Dr. Link’s use of the words
“might” and “moderate” to describe the Plaintiff’s limitations were not controlling. Indeed, Dr.
Link’s own description of those activities that the Plaintiff could undertake, coupled with
additional evidence in the record,1 suggested that the use of those words did not elevate the
Plaintiff’s mental conditions to severe. Finally, the GAF score of 59 did not elevate the
Plaintiff’s mental impairment to a moderate limitation because it took into account
“psychological, social, and occupational functioning,” the latter of which Dr. Link noted were
more impaired. (R. 921.) Of the four broad functional areas that the regulations set out for
evaluating mental disorders, the Plaintiff experienced only mild limitations in the first three—
activities of daily living, social functioning, and concentration, persistence, or pace—and no
episodes of decompensation, which rendered her mental impairments nonsevere.
At step three, the ALJ considered whether the Plaintiff’s impairments, or combination of
impairments, met or medically equaled the severity of one of the impairments listed by the
Administration as being so severe that it presumptively precludes SGA. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404,
Subpt. P, App. 1. The ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff’s degenerative arthritis of the right knee,
In particular, the ALJ relied upon the function report that the Plaintiff’s sister wrote. (R. 921.)
bilateral ankle pain and instability status post surgeries, and obesity did not meet or equal a listed
Next, the ALJ was required, at step four, to determine the Plaintiff’s residual functional
capacity (RFC), which is an assessment of the claimant’s ability to perform sustained workrelated physical and mental activities in light of her impairments. SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184,
at *1 (July 2, 1996). The ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff had the RFC to perform sedentary
work, which meant only occasional stooping, balancing, and crouching. The Plaintiff could not
perform work that required climbing, crawling, or kneeling, and could not do work outside in
cold or wet weather. In making these findings, the ALJ incorporated by reference the weighting
of evidence from its 2010 decision. As such, the RFC in the 2014 decision was unchanged from
the RFC that the ALJ adopted in his 2010 decision, which meant that there were no mental
limitations included in the ultimate RFC. However, the ALJ noted that, even when he gave great
weight to Dr. Link’s characterization of the Plaintiff’s mental impairments, the ALJ’s RFC
determination remained unchanged. This was so because the Plaintiff’s “level of functional
limitation [wa]s not associated with an inability to perform all unskilled work” when the RFC
included mental impairments.
At the final step of the evaluation, the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff could not
perform any past relevant work. However, because of the Plaintiff’s age, education, work
experience, and RFC, the ALJ found that there were a significant number of jobs in the national
economy that the Plaintiff could perform. These jobs included addresser, document preparer, and
charge account clerk. These jobs were typically unskilled and performed at the sedentary level.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The decision of the ALJ is the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals
Council denies a request for review. Liskowitz v. Astrue, 559 F.3d 736, 739 (7th Cir. 2009). A
court will affirm the Commissioner’s findings of fact and denial of disability benefits if they are
supported by substantial evidence. Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 673 (7th Cir. 2008). Substantial
evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). It must be “more than a scintilla
but may be less than a preponderance.” Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 841 (7th Cir. 2007).
Even if “reasonable minds could differ” about the disability status of the claimant, the court must
affirm the Commissioner’s decision as long as it is adequately supported. Elder v. Astrue, 529
F.3d 408, 413 (7th Cir. 2008).
It is the duty of the ALJ to weigh the evidence, resolve material conflicts, make
independent findings of fact, and dispose of the case accordingly. Perales, 402 U.S. at 399–400.
In this substantial-evidence determination, the court considers the entire administrative record
but does not reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts, decide questions of credibility, or substitute the
court’s own judgment for that of the Commissioner. Lopez ex rel. Lopez v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d
535, 539 (7th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, the court conducts a “critical review of the evidence”
before affirming the Commissioner’s decision, and the decision cannot stand if it lacks
evidentiary support or an inadequate discussion of the issues. Id.
The ALJ is not required to address every piece of evidence or testimony presented, but
the ALJ must provide a “logical bridge” between the evidence and the conclusions. Terry v.
Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 475 (7th Cir. 2009). If the Commissioner commits an error of law, remand
is warranted without regard to the volume of evidence in support of the factual findings. Binion
v. Chater, 108 F.3d 780, 782 (7th Cir. 1997).
The Plaintiff presents three issues for review. First, the Plaintiff argues that the ALJ
failed to follow the AC’s remand order regarding the Plaintiff’s mental impairments. (Pl.’s Br.
13–18, ECF No. 17-1.) Second, the ALJ’s evaluation of the Plaintiff’s RFC was erroneous
because it was unchanged since the 2010 decision. (Id. at 18–22.) Third, the ALJ failed to follow
SSR 96-7p2 and made erroneous credibility findings regarding opinion evidence. (Id. at 22–25.)
The Court finds that these arguments center around two separate issues. One is whether
the ALJ appropriately considered the evidence of the Plaintiff’s mental impairments, the most
central of which was Dr. Link’s opinion. An improper assessment of the Plaintiff’s mental
impairment evidence would have undermined the ALJ’s ultimate RFC determination. The other
issue is whether the ALJ properly considered new opinion evidence from Dr. Freeman, Dr.
Borgenheimer, and Dr. Halstead, when deciding upon issues of credibility.
Upon reviewing the record, the Court finds that the ALJ considered all the evidence and
gave appropriate consideration to the combined effects of the Plaintiff’s mental impairments. An
ALJ is obliged to consider all relevant evidence and cannot “cherry-pick” facts that support a
finding of non-disability while ignoring evidence that points to a disability finding. Denton v.
Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 425 (7th Cir. 2010).
The ALJ must determine an individual’s RFC, or what an individual can still do
despite his or her limitations, based upon medical evidence as well as other
evidence, such as testimony by the claimant or his friends and family. In making a
SSR 96-7p was replaced with a new ruling, SSR 16-3p, Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability
Claims, which more closely follows the Agency’s regulatory language regarding symptom evaluation. See
SSR 16-3P, 2016 WL 1119029, at *1 (Mar. 16, 2016). The substantive aspects of SSR 16-3p do not apply
retroactively, so SSR 96-7p still governs this case.
proper RFC determination, the ALJ must consider all of the relevant evidence in
the record, even limitations that are not severe, and may not dismiss a line of
evidence contrary to the ruling. However, a determination need not contain a
complete written evaluation of every piece of evidence.
Murphy v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 811, 817–18 (7th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks, brackets, and
citations omitted). To begin, the Plaintiff claims that the ALJ failed to follow the AC’s remand
order because the ALJ gave insufficient weight to Dr. Link’s opinion and too much weight to the
state agency psychologists. This argument mischaracterizes the AC’s remand order, which
required the ALJ to explain why Dr. Link’s opinion deserved the weight it received. (R. 951–52.)
It did not direct the ALJ to expressly find that Dr. Link’s opinion deserved greater weight. The
ALJ followed this directive.
The Plaintiff argues that Dr. Link’s opinion was entitled to great weight because of the
statement about the Plaintiff’s attention span, the fact that the entirety of the opinion was wellreasoned and not subjective, and the high GAF score. The ALJ explained why Dr. Link’s report
was not entitled to much weight. With regard to Dr. Link’s opinion as to the Plaintiff’s attention
span, a notation stated that “She was able to attend for periods of less than fifteen minutes.
Concentration was fair. She was able to complete all tasks.” (R. 617.) The ALJ found that this
notation, in and of itself, did not show that the Plaintiff suffered from severe mental limitations.
To corroborate this conclusion, the ALJ cited a third party report from the Plaintiff’s sister that
suggested her disability was mostly caused by physical, rather than mental, impairments. The
ALJ also cited the state agency psychologists’ views, which the remand order did not proscribe
him from considering, as further support for this conclusion. Although the Plaintiff disputes the
ultimate conclusion to be gleaned from these reports, the ALJ’s reasons for his conclusion were
explained and reasoned. The Court cannot say this was error.
Similarly, the Plaintiff argues that Dr. Link’s opinion was entitled to greater weight
because, on the whole, it was well-reasoned and used objective evidence to show that the
Plaintiff had mental impairments. As such, the ALJ’s focus on the words “might” and
“moderate” in Dr. Link’s opinion was too narrow and failed to account for the “evidence as a
whole.” (Pl.’s Br. 15–16.) But Dr. Link’s conclusion that the Plaintiff was “functioning at a
moderate level of impaired” (R. 619), does not lead to an “unequivocal” conclusion that the
Plaintiff had a severe mental impairment. (Pl.’s Br. 16). In fact, the remainder of that sentence
reads “functioning at a moderate level of impaired in terms of work related activities in respect
to her overall level of function” (R. 619 (emphasis added)), which does not show that Dr. Link
assessed the Plaintiff with a moderate mental impairment. The context from the rest of Dr.
Link’s opinion furthers such a conclusion. The Court cannot say that the ALJ’s discussion of
these words amounted to “cherry-picking.” Denton, 596 F.3d at 425.
The argument regarding Dr. Link’s Global Assessment of Function (GAF) score of 59
leads the Court to a similar conclusion. As the Seventh Circuit has stated:
GAF scores . . . are “useful for planning treatment,” and are measures of both
severity of symptoms and functional level. . . . Because the “final GAF rating
always reflects the worse of the two,” . . . the score does not reflect the clinician’s
opinion of functional capacity. Accordingly, “nowhere do the Social Security
regulations or case law require an ALJ to determine the extent of an individual’s
disability based entirely on his GAF score.”
Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). The fact that Dr. Link issued a GAF score did not
compel the ALJ to find that the Plaintiff suffered from a significant mental impairment. Instead,
the ALJ properly considered the whole of Dr. Link’s opinions, including the GAF score, to
support his ultimate finding that the Plaintiff had no significant mental impairments.
Whether or not the ALJ gave sufficient explanation for the weight afforded Dr. Link’s
opinion, the Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s sequential determination was nonetheless erroneous.
To support this argument, the Plaintiff notes that the AC’s remand ordered the ALJ to reassess
the RFC (both mental and physical limitations), but the ALJ merely adopted the RFC from the
2010 decision because the higher court did not expressly say there was error. The Court is not so
persuaded. The only additional evidence to be considered in the decision was the Plaintiff’s
testimony as to her mental impairments, which the ALJ noted presented no new evidence. As
such, the ALJ articulated specific reasons “supported by the record” for why the Plaintiff’s
assertions about her symptoms were not entirely credible. Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 937
(7th Cir. 2015); Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731, 738 (7th Cir. 2006) (“Only if the trier of
fact grounds his credibility finding in an observation or argument that is unreasonable or
unsupported . . . can the finding be reversed.”). Furthermore, the ALJ stated that
even if [he] would give great weight to Dr. Link’s very general characterization of
the claimant’s limitations as “moderate, [he] still would consider the same body
of additional evidence that has already been considered in this decision, and
would arrive at work-related functional restrictions in the RFC that approximate
the assessment made by the State agency consultants.
(R. 924–25.) This analysis of the Plaintiff’s RFC accounted for even nonsevere
limitations and was appropriate.
In part of her brief, the Plaintiff argues that the ALJ ignored the AC’s remand
order when he incorporated by reference his analysis of the opinions of Dr. Freeman, Dr.
Edquist, and Dr. Halstead, which were included in his prior decision. However, an ALJ’s
credibility determination is not automatically flawed if it incorporates a prior decision’s
findings.3 Despite the Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, the Court is satisfied that the
ALJ thoroughly considered all of these doctors’ opinions and weighted them based upon
The Plaintiff’s relies on Oliver v. Colvin, No. 12-CV-400, 2014 WL 941820 (W.D. Wis. Mar.
11, 2014), to argue that incorporation of a prior decision’s findings is grounds for automatic reversal, but
the Court could not locate any support in Oliver for such a proposition.
the evidence in the record in order to make his RFC determination. Accordingly, the ALJ
“explain[ed] [his] decision in such a way that allows [the court] to determine whether
[he] reached [his] decision in a rational manner, logically based on [his] specific findings
and the evidence in the record.” McKinzey v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 884, 890 (7th Cir. 2011).
This Court does substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ’s.
Next, the Court turns to the ALJ’s credibility determinations. An ALJ’s credibility
determinations are entitled to special deference, Sims v. Barnhart, 442 F.3d 536, 538 (7th Cir.
2006), so long as the ALJ still “build[s] an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and
the result,” Shramek v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 809, 811 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks
omitted); SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *1 (July 2, 1996) (an ALJ must “consider the entire
case record and give specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s statements”). The
regulations and SSR 96-7p set forth the Agency’s policy for evaluating a claimant’s symptoms
and assessing the credibility of her statements.4
The Plaintiff argues that it was improper for the ALJ to disregard her own subjective
testimony about her symptoms for the sole reason that there was no objective medical evidence
in support. But this mischaracterizes the record. The ALJ did base his adverse-credibility
determination as to the Plaintiff’s statements about her mental symptoms on additional evidence
in the record—the Plaintiff’s sister’s statements and an assessment of Dr. Link’s opinion.
Prochaska, 454 F.3d at 738 (“SSR 96-7p instructs that when ‘determining the credibility of the
individual’s statement, the adjudicator must consider the entire case record . . . .’”). The Plaintiff
Although SSR 96-7p governs this case, SSR 16-3p clarifies SSA’s existing policy by explicitly
stating that an ALJ need not discuss all of the regulatory factors that he considers, except as he finds them
pertinent to the case. 2016 WL 1119029, at *7 (“If there is no information in the evidence of record
regarding one of the factors, we will not discuss that specific factor in the determination or decision
because it is not relevant to the case”).
pressed a similar argument as to the ALJ’s adverse-credibility determination regarding her own
statements about her physical limitations. Specifically, the Plaintiff claimed that the ALJ ignored
Dr. Halstead’s objective findings, which were “a basis for Plaintiff’s complaints of pain,” and the
Plaintiff’s daughter’s “testimony regarding her need to frequently elevate her legs while sitting.”
(Pl.’s Br. 23.) But the Court is only empowered to overturn the ALJ’s credibility determinations
when they are “patently wrong.” See Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 887 (7th Cir. 2001)
(quoting Powers v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 431, 435 (7th Cir. 2000). The Court cannot say that any of
the aforementioned credibility determinations qualified as such.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED on February 1, 2017.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?