Sneed v. Commissioner of Social Security
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court remands the ALJ's decision to the Agency. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 9/29/2017. (jss)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
BEVERLY LYN SNEED,
Case No. 2:16-CV-195-JVB-JEM
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Beverly Lyn Sneed seeks judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s
decision denying her disability benefits, and asks this Court to remand the case. For the reasons
below, this Court remands the case.
Overview of the Case
Plaintiff alleges that she became disabled on November 19, 2010. (R. at 233.) Plaintiff
previously worked part-time at a cleaning company and at various Burger King locations. (R. at
602–06.) Plaintiff has not worked since 2008. (R. at 602.) Administrative Law Judge Dennis R.
Kramer found that Plaintiff suffered from several severe physical and mental conditions. (R. at
562.) Yet, the ALJ concluded that she could perform some light, unskilled work, so long as
interactions with the public were limited and only simple tasks were required. (R. at 575.)
Therefore, the ALJ denied her benefits. (R. at 578.) This denial became final when the Appeals
Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. (R. at 542.)
Standard of Review
This Court has authority to review the Commissioner’s decision under 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). The Court will ensure that the ALJ built an “accurate and logical bridge” from
evidence to conclusion. Thomas v. Colvin, 745 F.3d 802, 806 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court will
uphold decisions that apply the correct legal standard and are supported by substantial evidence.
Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 351 (7th Cir. 2005).
The Commissioner follows a five-step inquiry in evaluating claims for disability benefits
under the Social Security Act:
(1) whether the claimant is currently employed; (2) whether the claimant has a
severe impairment; (3) whether the claimant’s impairment is one that the
Commissioner considers conclusively disabling; (4) if the claimant does not have
a conclusively disabling impairment, whether he can perform his past relevant
work; and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing any work in the
Kastner v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 642, 646 (7th Cir. 2012).
The claimant bears the burden of proof at every step except step five. Clifford v. Apfel,
227 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in finding that she can work. Specifically, she argues
that the ALJ: (1) improperly assessed Plaintiff’s hand limitations, (2) improperly dismissed the
Agency examiner’s opinion, (3) improperly discredited Plaintiff’s testimony, (4) ignored
Plaintiff’s anger issues, and (5) ignored Plaintiff’s fatigue impairments.
The ALJ Properly Assessed Plaintiff’s Hand Limitations.
The ALJ confronted hand-limitation evidence and sufficiently explained why he found no
significant hand limitations. An ALJ may reject evidence favorable to the Plaintiff if he
sufficiently explains why he did so. Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118, 1123 (7th Cir. 2014). Here,
the ALJ addressed hand-limitation findings by two doctors and discredited them because they
went against the doctors’ own objective findings. (R. at 567, 571.) This explanation suffices.
The ALJ Failed to Properly Weigh the Agency Examiner’s Opinion.
The ALJ failed to explain why he dismissed the Agency examiner’s report entirely. (R. at
571.) This requires remand. Although an ALJ may do so, this “unusual step” requires a “good
explanation.” Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 834, 839 (7th Cir. 2014). An ALJ cannot simply
“play doctor” and decide that the Agency examiner got it wrong. Engstrand v. Colvin, 788 F.3d
655, 660–61 (7th Cir. 2015). If the examiner’s conclusion confuses the ALJ, then the ALJ should
ask the examiner to elaborate. Garcia v. Colvin, 741 F.3d 758, 760 (7th Cir. 2013).
The Agency examiner imposed significant movement limitations on Plaintiff. (R. at 816.)
If considered, they would render Plaintiff unemployable. (R. at 654–60.) The ALJ dismissed
them because he thought they were based on “subjective complaints as opposed to the results of
the examination.” (R. at 571.) However, the ALJ cites only hand-limitation inconsistencies to
support this. (R. at 571–72.) Moreover, the examiner observed movement limitations when he
examined Plaintiff. (R. at 571.) Although the examiner also observed evidence that Plaintiff
could move freely, the doctor concluded that the bad outweighed the good. (R. at 816.)
Apparently, the ALJ either ignored the bad or decided that it could not coexist with the good.
This he cannot do. Engstrand, 788 F.3d at 660–61. The ALJ must accept the examiner’s findings
that he cannot properly discredit.
The ALJ Failed to Properly Evaluate the Credibility of Plaintiff’s Testimony.
Although a reviewing court defers to an ALJ on credibility findings, it may remand if the
finding is “patently wrong,” Id. at 660, or if the ALJ fails to sufficiently explain the finding with
“specific reasons supported by the record.” Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 937 (7th Cir. 2015).
However, the ALJ must go beyond inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s testimony and the
objective record. Hill v. Colvin, 807 F.3d 862, 869 (7th Cir. 2015).
Here, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s testimony only partially credible because (1) Plaintiff
smokes, (2) Plaintiff is not seeking mental-health treatment, (3) Plaintiff can perform daily
activities, and (4) the objective record is inconsistent with Plaintiff’s testimony. (R. at 562–76.)
The first three reasons are invalid without further explanation, and the fourth cannot stand on its
own. Thus, the ALJ’s credibility finding is patently wrong and requires remand.
The ALJ Improperly Held Plaintiff’s Smoking Against Her.
An ALJ can discredit a claimant’s disability claim by showing that she ignored doctor’s
orders, but the ALJ must show that she would not be disabled had she obeyed the doctor.
Shramek v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff smokes
despite multiple doctors telling her to quit. (R. at 574.) However, the ALJ never identified any
impairments that would significantly improve if Plaintiff quits smoking. If the ALJ wishes to
rely on Plaintiff’s smoking, he must explain what effect quitting smoking would have.
The ALJ Improperly Held Plaintiff’s Lack of Mental-Health Treatment Against Her.
That a claimant stops treatment tends to undermine her disability claim. Beardsley, 758
F.3d at 840. However, an ALJ must determine whether she had a good reason to stop treatment.
Hill, 807 F.3d at 868. Merely asking a claimant why she stopped treatment and noting her
answer will not suffice. Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 639 (7th Cir. 2013). Yet, the ALJ did just
that: mentioning Plaintiff’s reason but never evaluating it. (R. at 572.) The ALJ must either
explain why he rejected Plaintiff’s reason or stop relying on Plaintiff’s lack of treatment.
The ALJ Improperly Held Plaintiff’s Daily Activities Against Her.
An ALJ may conclude that a claimant’s daily activities suggest that she can work, so long
as the ALJ equates the daily activities to what work would require. Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d
351, 369 (7th Cir. 2013). Here, the ALJ failed to do that. While the ALJ notes that Plaintiff can
“independently care for her personal needs,” he fails to equate those personal needs to work
tasks. (R. at 564.) Nor does he show that “preparing simple meals and shopping” necessarily
means that Plaintiff can work, especially given Plaintiff’s testimony that she only shops a few
times a month and never alone. (R. at 564, 629.) Plaintiff claimed that her children do most of
the household chores. (R. at 308–09.) The ALJ’s only response is that “she has demonstrated
high adaptive functioning in being able to care for her family.” (R. at 564.) The ALJ neither
defines “high adaptive functioning,” nor cites specific instances of it.
If the ALJ wishes to hold Plaintiff’s daily activities against her, he must identify the
activities and how often she does them; show that someone who can do those activities that often
can also work; and discredit Plaintiff’s claims of how much her children help with the activities.
The ALJ Properly Assessed Plaintiff’s Anger Issues.
Plaintiff testified that she had “bad anger issues.” (R. at 621.) Dr. Nordstrom, who
examined Plaintiff in 2015, concluded that this would affect her social interactions. (R. at 829.)
The ALJ factored this into his finding of moderate social limitations. (R. at 564.) Specifically,
the ALJ limited Plaintiff to work with small-scale public interactions. (R. at 575.) According to
the vocational expert, this would not preclude Plaintiff from working. (R. at 656.) Thus, the ALJ
properly considered Plaintiff’s anger issues.
The ALJ Failed to Properly Assess Plaintiff’s Fatigue Issues.
Plaintiff also testified that she had fatigue issues. (R. at 612.) To discredit this, the ALJ
cited Plaintiff’s daily activities and her status as a “single parent of 4 children.” (R. at 575.) The
first reason fails for the reasons discussed above, and the second reason similarly fails. Although
Plaintiff is a single parent of four children, the ALJ failed to mention that (1) two of Plaintiff’s
children are now adults, (2) the youngest of her children is now 14, and (3) she lives with her
over-40-year-old brother. (R. at 598, 630.) While “single mother of four children” can imply that
one cannot rest at will and therefore does not, “single mother who is one of three adults in a
household with two over-13 children” hardly implies that. Moreover, the ALJ failed to mention
that Plaintiff tested positive for fatigue multiple times. (R. at 499, 810, 1253, 1261.) The ALJ
must confront all of this contrary evidence.
The ALJ dismissed the Agency examiner’s opinion without providing a logical
explanation, discredited Plaintiff’s credibility for patently wrong reasons, and failed to confront
favorable evidence of Plaintiff’s fatigue impairments. Accordingly, the Court remands the ALJ’s
decision to the Agency.
SO ORDERED on September 29, 2017.
S/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?