Shideler v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 22

OPINION AND ORDER: AFFIRMING the ALJ's denial of benefits and DECLINING Mr. Shideler's request to remand this action to a different ALJ for further proceedings. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/11/11. (jld)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
BRADLEY M. SHIDELER,
Plaintiff
v.
MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No.: 3:10-CV-384 RLM

OPINION and ORDER
Bradley Shideler seeks judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for disability insurance
benefits under the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d). The court has
jurisdiction over this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). For the reasons that follow,
the court affirms the Commissioner’s decision.

I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Shideler suffers from osteogenesis imperfecta, a genetic disease also
known as “brittle bone disease.” Mr Shideler testified before the Administrative
Law Judge that, at the time, he had suffered broken bones 55 times throughout
his life, which contributed to debilitating arthritis; he had to have reconstructive
surgery on his left foot at the age of 16; breathing is very painful; his back pain
is constantly a 10 on a 10 point scale; he can’t grab things with his hands; and
other problems with which the court presumes the reader’s familiarity.

Mr. Shideler applied for SSDI benefits on October 31, 2006. He claimed a
disability onset date of June 30, 1995, and his date last insured was March 31,
2000. After being denied benefits and going through the usual processes, he
appeared before the Administrative Law Judge in March 2009. Mr. Shideler was
represented by counsel at the hearing. Mr. Shideler, a friend with whom he was
living at the time, and a vocational expert all testified at the hearing. The ALJ
issued a detailed ruling denying benefits in May 2009. The Appeals Council denied
review in July 2010, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security. Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1160 (7th Cir.
2010). This appeal followed. Mr. Shideler filed his opening brief, and the
government filed its response. The time within which to file a reply brief has
passed.
The ALJ’s decision followed the standard five-step sequential evaluation
used in these matters. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a). The ALJ concluded that “the
claimant’s and his witness’ statements concerning the intensity, persistence and
limiting effects of [his] symptoms are not persuasive because the statements are
not supported by the medical and other evidence of record.” R. 13. Still, the ALJ
allowed Mr. Shideler a number of restrictions when she concluded
that, through the date last insured, the claimant had the residual
functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR
404.1567(a) but ... that the claimant can never crouch, kneel, crawl
or climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; can only occasionally climb
ramps or stairs; cannot do any overhead reaching; is limited to
frequent but not constant fingering of small objects; must avoid

2

exposure to extremes of cold, heat, humidity and unprotected
heights. In addition, the claimant is limited to simple, routine tasks.
R. 12. The vocational expert testified that, under these limitations, jobs existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that Mr. Shideler could have
performed as of March 31, 2000, the date last insured, including credit clerk
(about 100 jobs in the regional economy), order clerk (about 150 jobs in the
regional economy), and telephone clerk (about 100 jobs in the regional economy).
Mr. Shideler challenges the ALJ’s conclusion that he wasn’t disabled through
March 31, 2000, the date last insured, arguing that the ALJ’s findings weren’t
supported by substantial evidence.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court must affirm the Commissioner’s
determination if it is supported by substantial evidence, Young v. Barnhart, 362
F.3d 995, 1001 (7th Cir. 2004), which means “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson
v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1160 (7th
Cir. 2010). This deferential analysis prevents the court from re-weighing the
evidence, making independent findings of fact, deciding questions of credibility,
or substituting its own judgment for that of the Commissioner. Clifford v. Apfel,
227 F.3d 836, 869 (7th Cir. 2000). In reviewing the ALJ’s conclusions, “[t]he court
will conduct a critical review of the evidence, considering both the evidence that

3

supports, as well as the evidence that detracts from, the Commissioner’s decision,
and the decision cannot stand if it lacks evidentiary support or an adequate
discussion of the issues.” Briscoe v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 351 (7th Cir. 2005).
The ALJ isn’t required “to address every piece of evidence or testimony presented,
but must provide a ‘logical bridge’ between the evidence and the conclusions so
that [the court] can assess the validity of the agency’s ultimate findings and afford
the claimant meaningful judicial review.” Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1160
(7th Cir. 2010).

III. DISCUSSION
Mr. Shideler claimed a disability onset date of June 30, 1995, and his date
last insured was March 31, 2000. This date last insured was pivotal to the ALJ’s
decision. Mr. Shideler stopped working after he tearing a knee ligament in October
1999. Mr. Shideler told his doctors that the injury happened while he was riding
his dirt bike. R. 198, 202. Though he didn’t have insurance, Mr. Shideler was able
to obtain necessary surgery and made what his medical records indicate to be a
very good recovery. R. 181, 184, 187, 190, 192, 198. Mr. Shideler’s doctor
discharged him in May 2000 and allowed Mr. Shideler to return to work without
any restrictions. R. 181. Mr. Shideler was to return to his doctor of there were any
problems. Id.
Mr. Shideler’s medical records concern mostly his knee injury, revealing no
doctor visits between 1995 and 2000 for other medical issues and providing brief
4

insight to a scoliosis finding in 2007 and echocardiogram and orthopedic
consultation in 2009. The ALJ noted that all the medical records corroborate Mr.
Shideler’s claim of having osteogenesis imperfecta, and the ALJ discredited the
State agency’s rosy findings in December 2006 and March 2007 about Mr.
Shideler’s residual functional capacity. But the ALJ ultimately found the
testimony about the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of his symptoms not
persuasive because they weren’t supported by objective medical and other
evidence in the record.
The ALJ’s comments at the hearing reveal the ALJ’s concerns: though she
seemed quite accepting of what Mr. Shideler told her at the hearing in 2009
(concerning, for example, his severe back pain, his need to lie down to alleviate
that pain, the impairments in his hands, and so on), there was little testimony
and no medical evidence corroborating his claims of inability to work due to
disability before the date last insured of March 31, 2000. The ALJ said, “actually,
I have to go back to prior to 2000,” R. 39; the ALJ told Mr. Shideler’s attorney
exactly what she was looking for when she said to him, “My problem with this case
is that there’s very little medical prior to his date last insured,” R. 54; the ALJ said
again, “It’s just a matter of the problem with the date last insured,” R. 56; and the
ALJ reminded Mr. Shideler’s attorney that “The question is the severity and how
far back it’s gone,” R. 59.
The ALJ let Mr. Shideler submit records from a medical exam he was to
receive after the hearing and indicated a desire to “connect all the pieces together”
5

for Mr. Shideler. R. 56. Addressing his pre-2000 condition, Mr. Shideler testified
that “I could probably do a little bit more then but not much more than what I’m
capable of doing today.” R. 57.
Mr. Shideler now argues that the ALJ erroneously accepted some of Mr.
Shideler’s testimony, but not other aspects of it, and did so without any basis.
Specifically, the ALJ took into account almost all of the limitations Mr. Shideler
testified to, including humidity restrictions, but didn’t take into account Mr.
Shideler’s need to lie down for long periods three times a day in order to alleviate
his back pain. Mr. Shideler argues the ALJ not only did this without basis but
that the ALJ also exaggerated Mr. Shideler’s testimony about the number of times
he needs to lie down. Mr. Shideler argues this was detrimental to him because the
vocational expert testified there would be no jobs for someone with all of Mr.
Shideler’s restrictions once he took into account Mr. Shideler’s stated need to lie
down for long periods three times a day.
Mr. Shideler’s argument overlooks that, for purposes of SSDI benefits, he
must show he was disabled as of the date last insured. A judge might find Mr.
Shideler was disabled as of the date of his March 2009 hearing, but the question
is what Mr. Shideler’s condition was on or before March 31, 2000.
An ALJ’s credibility determination is given great deference on appeal and
will not be reversed unless it is “patently wrong.” Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503,
517 (7th Cir. 2009). When evaluating credibility the ALJ must “consider the entire
case record and give specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s
6

statements.” Id. (quoting SSR 96-7p). This means the ALJ “should look to a
number of factors to determine credibility, such as the objective medical evidence,
the claimant’s daily activities, allegations of pain, aggravating factors, types of
treatment received and medication taken, and ‘functional limitations.’” Simila v.
Astrue, 573 F.3d at 517 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(4)).
The ALJ’s decision to limit how much of Mr. Shideler’s testimony she would
find credible, and therefore how many restrictions she would accept in her
residual functional capacity finding, was not patently wrong. Further, substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding, and the ALJ’s
reasoning provides a logical bridge between the evidence and her conclusions.
As the ALJ explained at the hearing, she needed Mr. Shideler and his
attorney to take her back to March 31, 2000. The ALJ was quite sympathetic to
Mr. Shideler’s condition in 2009, and she stated she was looking for something to
“tie the pieces together” for Mr. Shideler. But the evidence cut the other way. Mr.
Shideler was hurt when dirt-biking in 1999, and made a very good recovery from
that injury. Mr. Shideler hadn’t broken any bones during the several years before
2000 (though he broke a finger in 2007, which he set to a splint by himself). Mr.
Shideler’s explanation for why he had no medical records before his dirt-biking
incident, and for why he had a small pittance of records after May 2000 didn’t add
up, and the ALJ pointed this out in her opinion: Mr. Shideler said a free clinic only
recently became available in his town (in 2009) yet he was able to obtain surgery
in 1999 (though he had no insurance) and his treating physician encouraged him
7

to see him if he had problems. Further, Mr. Shideler’s physicians sent him back
to work and indicated no restrictions in 2000 and 2009.
The ALJ further explored Mr. Shideler’s current day to day life, discovering,
for example, that Mr. Shideler now can’t lift a crock pot and that it takes him a
very long time to do laundry. She considered his work history and found that of
the two jobs he’d had in the past 15 years, he couldn’t work as a carpet cleaner
now because that would be too physically demanding. She explored what
medications he took for pain management (as of the hearing). She listened to the
testimony of Mr. Shideler’s housemate.
The ALJ properly took into account not only the lack of objective medical
evidence supporting Mr. Shideler’s testimony concerning the intensity, persistence
and limiting effects of his symptoms on or before March 31, 2000, but also the
factors required in the Code of Federal Regulations (daily activities, allegations of
pain, aggravating factors, types of treatment received and medication taken, etc.).
The ALJ’s reasons for finding Mr. Shideler’s testimony to be not fully credible are
sound and not “patently wrong.” Thus, the ALJ’s ultimate conclusions are
supported by substantial evidence.
Mr. Shideler’s condition might reveal a weakness in SSDI law, but that is
a determination to be made by legislators and policymakers and not by the court.

IV. CONCLUSION

8

The ALJ’s decision was articulate and detailed, and supported by all the
evidence. The ALJ accurately and logically bridged the connection between the
evidence and the denial of benefits. Based on the foregoing, the court DECLINES
Mr. Shideler’s request to remand this action to a different ALJ for further
proceedings and AFFIRMS the ALJ’s denial of benefits.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: August 11, 2011
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge
United States District Court

9