IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JENNIFER AMLET,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of

Social Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

) No. 12 C 5249

)

) Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the Court on Jennifer Amlet’s motion 

for summary judgment and on the Commissioner’s cross-motion for 

summary judgment. Ms. Amlet seeks reversal or remand of the 

Commissioner’s decision to deny her application for Disability 

Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income 

(“SSI”). The Commissioner asks the Court to affirm her decision.

For the reasons explained below, Ms. Amlet’s motion is denied

and the Commissioner’s motion is granted.

Background & Procedural History

Ms. Amlet filed DIB and SSI applications on September 21, 

2009, alleging that she became disabled as of June 1, 2009.

Record at 168-77. Her applications were denied initially and 

upon reconsideration. She then requested, and was granted, a 

hearing before an administrative law judge, and her case was 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 1 of 55 PageID #:520
2

assigned to ALJ Robert T. Karmguard, who held the hearing on 

April 20, 2011 in Evanston, Illinois.

Upon commencing the hearing, the ALJ advised Ms. Amlet, who 

was represented by counsel, that he was not bound by any earlier 

determination in her application, but would assess her case 

based solely on the evidence contained within the exhibit file, 

along with the testimony given at the hearing. Record at 28. The 

hearing began with Ms. Amlet’s testimony. 

Ms. Amlet’s Testimony

Ms. Amlet testified that she was 47 years old at the time 

of the hearing. Record at 31. She also testified that she 

currently lives at home with her mother and granddaughter, and 

has done so since October 2009. Record at 31-32, 54-55.

Additionally, prior to Ms. Amlet’s testimony, the ALJ confirmed 

with Ms. Amlet's attorney that Ms. Amlet's last reported 

earnings were in 2009 and amounted to $9,800. Record at 29. Ms. 

Amlet also testified that, since her last job in June 2009, she 

has not been “receiving any type of disability benefit.” Record 

at 37.

With respect to her work history, Ms. Amlet testified that 

she was employed as a nursing assistant, rehabilitation 

assistant or companion from 2001 through 2009. Specifically, she

testified that she was a rehabilitation assistant for a few 

months in early 2001 at Red Oaks Nursing Home, a nursing 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 2 of 55 PageID #:521
3

assistant for a few months in 2001 at a nursing home, a nursing 

assistant from 2001 to 2004 and a rehabilitation assistant from 

2004 to April 2009 at a hospital. Record at 40, 42. Ms. Amlet's 

attorney brought to the court’s attention that Ms. Amlet was 

laid off from her rehabilitation assistant job at the hospital

in April 2009, but Ms. Amlet obtained a new job as a 

companion/nursing assistant for a family friend from April to 

June 2009. Record at 30, 37. Ms. Amlet testified that this job 

ended because the woman passed away. Record at 38. She further 

testified that she has not worked at all since June 2009

Ms. Amlet testified that, as a nursing assistant, her daily 

tasks included grooming and helping patients get dressed and 

washed up and taking the patients’ vitals; she was not 

responsible for bringing prescriptions to the patients; and she 

rarely had to do any lifting, but if she did, it was less than 

ten pounds. Record at 40-41. She also testified that, during her 

typical eight hour shift, she was on her feet, either standing 

or walking, approximately six hours. Record at 41.

Ms. Amlet testified that, as a rehabilitation assistant, 

she assisted the physical therapist and was involved in 

physically working with the patients; her duties included 

assisting in lifting patients and helping with exercises. Record 

at 39-40. She further testified that she did not have to lift or 

carry anything really heavy by herself and, in an eight hour 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 3 of 55 PageID #:522
4

shift, she was typically on her feet, either standing or 

walking, approximately six hours. Record at 40.

Ms. Amlet testified that, for her companion/nursing 

assistant job, she assisted a friend of her mother. Record at 

38. Ms. Amlet testified that this job was full-time (eight hours 

a day, five days a week) and her duties included sitting with 

her patient, traveling with her to appointments, preparing meals 

for her, and generally providing companionship. Record at 37-38.

She further testified that she did not shop or do household work 

(other than meal preparation) for her patient, there was no 

lifting or carrying involved in her duties, and she was on her 

feet approximately four hours of her eight hour shifts. Record 

at 37-38. 

With respect to Ms. Amlet’s medical history and her alleged 

disability, the record suggests that she was diagnosed with 

multiple sclerosis (“MS”) sometime between 2000 and 2009. Record 

at 50. Ms. Amlet did not testify – or offer other evidence –

concerning an exact diagnosis date. But she claims that her MS 

became disabling as of June 1, 2009, and the record shows that 

her doctor was talking about MS as early as 2004. Ms. Amlet 

testified that, by June 2009, she was experiencing episodes of 

tiredness, double vision, blurred vision, and headaches. Record 

at 33-37, 51-52. With respect to the tiredness, Ms. Amlet 

testified that she had difficulties at her companion/nursing 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 4 of 55 PageID #:523
5

assistant job because, more than once a week, she would fall 

asleep while working. Record at 35, 53. Ms. Amlet also testified 

that her headaches occurred about twice a week and had been 

ongoing for a number of years. Record at 34. She also testified 

that she normally takes over-the-counter Ibuprofen or Tylenol 

for her headaches, and that these episodes did not require her 

to go to the emergency room for treatment. Record at 49. As for 

Ms. Amlet’s eye problems, she testified that both the blurred 

and double vision occur only in her left eye. Record at 35-37.

She testified that the episodes of double vision were

infrequent, usually lasted two to three days, and had not 

happened since before June 2009. Record at 51. She testified 

that the last time she had double vision, she went to the 

hospital and a specialist put prisms in the lenses of some 

specialty glasses for her. Record at 51-52. As for the blurred 

vision in her left eye, Ms. Amlet testified that this is not 

episodic; rather it has been ongoing and was still a problem on 

the day of the hearing. Record at 35-37. 

Ms. Amlet also testified that she had been seeing a 

neurologist, Dr. Peter Chhabria, since 2004. Record at 57. She 

testified that Dr. Chhabria prescribed daily Copaxone injections 

for her MS, which she administers herself at home. Record 57.

Ms. Amlet testified that she was briefly off of her medication

when she was laid off from her job in April 2009, but that, as 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 5 of 55 PageID #:524
6

of September 2009, Dr. Chhabria helped her make arrangements to 

obtain her shots for free through the National Organization for 

Rare Disorders, Inc. (“NORD”) and the COPAXONE ® Patient 

Assistance Program. Record at 57, 60, 286. Ms. Amlet also 

testified that she has not had an appointment with Dr. Chhabria 

since October 2010 because she owes him money and cannot afford 

to pay the bills. Record at 57.

Ms. Amlet testified that, since her alleged disability 

began in June 2009, and since moving in with her mother in 

October 2009, she typically spends her days at home or at a 

friend’s home if that friend picks her up for a visit. Record at 

31-32, 43. She testified that she needs approximately ten to 

fifteen minutes to stretch each morning, and that before her MS 

diagnosis, she did not need to do this. Record at 50. She 

testified, however, that she does not have difficulty dressing 

herself or putting on her shoes. Record at 50. She testified 

that she can usually, depending on the day, walk and stand for 

approximately thirty to forty-five minutes, and she testified 

that she can cook and wash dishes. Record at 58. She also 

testified that, at most, she can lift ten to fifteen pounds, and 

that she has no difficulty sitting. Record at 58. According to 

her testimony, a typical day spent at home includes watching 

television for three to four hours, with intermittent episodes 

of dozing, preparing her own meals, and doing her laundry; she 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 6 of 55 PageID #:525
7

testified, however, that for every thirty to forty minutes of 

activity she does, she needs approximately fifteen minutes to 

rest before continuing. Record at 43, 49, 54. She also testified 

that she is able to read with glasses. She testified that she 

does not vacuum or mop, and the last time she did anything like 

that was when she lived in her own house in 2009. Record at 44.

Ms. Amlet also testified that she has a driver’s license with no 

restrictions, and access to a car. Record at 33. She testified 

that she sometimes drives herself around – in fact, she drove 

the day before the hearing. However, she also testified that,

because of the blurred vision in her left eye, she was concerned 

about her depth perception. She testified that during the past 

year, she stopped driving alone and often relies on her mother 

or her friends to drive her. Record at 44, 50-51. 

As for errands, Ms. Amlet testified that she never really 

liked grocery shopping, but she was able to do it and did so 

about once a month. Record at 44. She testified that she could 

handle the purchasing transactions and picking up items from the 

shelf and placing them into her cart; however, she does not 

carry her groceries from her car to her apartment – her son 

takes care of that for her. Record at 44, 55. Also, with respect 

to her vision problems, she testified that she was able to see 

items on the shelf clearly enough to make her purchases. Record 

at 61. She also testified that, with her glasses, she is able to 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 7 of 55 PageID #:526
8

see letters and read, however, she does not read much anymore. 

Record at 61.

When asked about her social life, Ms. Amlet testified that 

she would visit with friends a few times a week when they would 

come visit her at her home or if they drove her to their homes, 

and she testified that she would go out on “dates,” i.e. “going 

out to eat or something,” maybe twice a month but the “dates” 

would only last for about an hour. Record at 45, 55-56.

The ALJ asked Ms. Amlet how her typical day’s activities 

now compare to her activities in June 2009. Initially, she 

testified that she “definitely did more [back in June 2009].” 

Record at 47. However, she then testified that the descriptions 

she had been giving the ALJ at the hearing had been her typical 

day for “two, two-and-a-half years” now, i.e. referring back to 

June 2009. Id. She also answered in the affirmative when the ALJ 

asked her if her “[typical] day was about the same from the time 

[she] stopped working until [the day of the hearing, April 20, 

2011].” Id. Finally, she testified that her days have “slowed 

down since then,” and that “it was better in June of ’09, [she]

could still function better than [she] could now.” Id.

The Vocational Expert’s Testimony

The ALJ also heard testimony from Margaret Ford, a 

Vocational Expert who reviewed the written information of record 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 8 of 55 PageID #:527
9

and heard Ms. Amlet's testimony. Record at 62-63. After advising 

the ALJ that she had no clarification questions, the VE

testified that Ms. Amlet’s prior occupations fell into three 

classifications: (i) Certified Nursing Assistant (“CNA”) (DOT 

code: 355.674-014); (ii) Physical Therapist Aide (“PT Aide”) 

(DOT code: 355.354-010); and (iii) Companion (DOT code: 309.677-

010). The VE testified that the CNA and PT aide occupations had 

skill levels of 4, which are “semi-skilled,” and physical 

demands of “Medium.” Record 63. However, she also testified 

that, with respect to the physical demands for the CNA position, 

“[Ms. Amlet] indicated she completed it at light.” For the PT 

Aide position, the VE testified that she was “unable to

determine if [Ms. Amlet] completed it at light or medium duty,”

so she classified it as “medium with assistance.” Record at 63,

64. The companion classification had a skill level of 3, which 

is low end, semi-skilled, and a physical demand of “light, per 

the DOT and how [Ms. Amlet] indicated she completed the job.”

Record at 64.

The VE testified that a hypothetical person with 

limitations similar to those experienced by Ms. Amlet would be 

precluded from working as a CNA or PT Aide; however, such an 

individual would still be able to work as a Companion – at least 

in the same manner as Ms. Amlet performed her Companion job.

Record at 65. Limiting the hypothetical individual to employment 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 9 of 55 PageID #:528
10

in Illinois, the VE testified that such a person could perform 

“light type work” in occupations such as a Cashier (DOT 211.462-

010), Order filler (DOT 222.487-014), or Racker (DOT 529.687-

018). The VE also testified that, if this same individual had 

additional limitations (such as an inability to recall, focus 

on, attend to, or carry out complex or detailed instructions or 

to perform complex or detailed tasks, but was able to perform 

simple, routine type instructions and tasks at a workman-like 

pace), such a person would be precluded from Ms. Amlet’s prior 

Companion job, however, that person could still work as a 

Cashier, Order filler, or Racker. Record at 66. The VE further 

testified that if this same individual had additional 

limitations such as only being able to lift or carry a maximum 

of ten pounds on occasional basis; lift or carry lighter items 

such as small hand tools or individual case files on a frequent 

basis; and walking and standing with normal breaks limited to 

two total hours in an 8 hour day, this person would be precluded 

from the previously mentioned jobs. Record at 67. However, this 

same individual could work at a sedentary, unskilled job such as 

Bench hand (DOT 715.684-026), Sorter (DOT 521.687-086), or Table 

worker (DOT 739.687-182). Record at 67. Lastly, the VE testified 

that, if this hypothetical individual, with all the previously 

mentioned limitations, also needed to take unscheduled breaks 

three to four times per day for ten to fifteen minutes, she 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 10 of 55 PageID #:529
11

would be precluded from all work. Record at 69. With respect to 

breaks and “off-task behavior,” the VE testified that the 

typical tolerance for such behavior is approximately twenty 

percent of the workday, or six minutes per hour. Record at 69-

70.

Medical Records

In addition to the testimony of Ms. Amlet and the VE, the 

record before the ALJ also included medical records for Ms. 

Amlet. Those records show that, on May 13, 2004, Ms. Amlet 

experienced left facial and extremity numbness and was referred 

to Saint Therese Medical Center for a Brain GAD. Record at 265.

According to the records, the brain scan revealed moderate 

plaque and numerous actively-enhancing lesions, the pattern of 

which was consistent with multiple sclerosis involving the 

cerebrum and brain stem. Record at 265.

Ms. Amlet returned to the hospital on December 6, 2004, 

complaining of severe headaches, visual disturbances, and 

dizziness. Record at 259-263, 278-281. She was admitted, and on 

December 7, 2004, the hospital conducted multiple tests: (i) 3D 

MR angiography of the intracranial arteries, (ii) a 2D MR 

angiography of the extracranial arteries, and (iii) an MRI.

Record at 259. The 3D angiography revealed what appeared to be 

an aneurysm of the supraclinoid segment of the internal carotid 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 11 of 55 PageID #:530
12

artery, Record at 259; the 2D angiography was normal, Record at 

261; and the MRI revealed “improvement in the appearance of the 

brain . . . with a pattern of multiple sclerosis,” only one 

actively-enhancing lesion,” and “resolution of all of the other 

previously-enhancing lesions.” Record at 262.

On January 4, 2008,1 another brain MRI was conducted and 

then compared to the December 7, 2004 MRI. Record at 352.

According to the report, this scan showed multiple hyperintense 

signals in the white matter on FLAIR and T2 sequences. However, 

the enhancement pattern could not be evaluated due to a lack of 

intravenous contrast in the current study, and, therefore, it 

was uncertain whether some of the lesions were active 

demyelinating plaques. Record at 352. 

On March 28, 2008, Dr. Chhabria saw Ms. Amlet for neck 

pain. Record at 304-305. Dr. Chhabria's assessment indicates: 

(i) MS, (ii) acute cervical sprain and (iii) overweight. Record

at 304. He recommended neck exercises and provided Ms. Amlet 

with a three-month refill prescription for Copaxone. 

Dr. Chhabria saw Ms. Amlet again on July 3, 2008 and 

December 30, 2008. Record at 306-08. Dr. Chhabria’s records for 

July 3, 2008 indicate that the exam was generally unremarkable, 

and noted diagnoses of (i) MS, (ii) acute cervical sprain, and 

(iii) overweight. Record at 306-07. Dr. Chhabria’s records for 

 

1 There were no medical records for the time spanning January 2005 to December 2007.

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 12 of 55 PageID #:531
13

December 30, 2008 indicate that the exam was again 

“unremarkable,” though he did note that Ms. Amlet’s weight had 

increased ten pounds; he also noted a diagnoses of (i) MS, (ii) 

thyroid goiter, and (iii) overweight. Record at 306-08.

On April 1, 2009, Dr. Chhabria saw Ms. Amlet for left-sided 

headaches, which she reported had persisted for one month.

Record at 310-11. His assessment indicated: (i) left sided 

headaches — new onset, (ii) MS, (iii) thyroid goiter, and (iv) 

overweight. Record at 310. He scheduled an MRI, and counseled 

Ms. Amlet on weight and artherosclerosis risk factors. Record at 

311. Additionally, he noted that Ms. Amlet had been given 

thyroid hormone but had discontinued that treatment when there 

was no change in the goiter size. Record at 311.

On April 3, 2009, the brain MRI, scheduled in accordance 

with Dr. Chhabria’s April 1, 2009 assessment, was conducted and 

compared against Ms. Amlet's January 4, 2008 MRI. Record at 276.

The report noted there were numerous lesions identified in the 

periventricular white matter, of which the configuration and 

orientation were suspicious for demyelinating process such as 

MS; however, the report also noted that there was no abnormal 

enhancement to suggest active inflammation or demyelination and 

no significant change since the prior exam. Record at 276-77. 

On September 3, 2009, Ms. Amlet saw Dr. Chhabria for a 

recurrence of blurred vision and left leg weakness and numbness 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 13 of 55 PageID #:532
14

over the past month. Record at 312. Dr. Chhabria noted that Ms. 

Amlet had been laid off from work since April 2009 and had not 

had Copaxone. Record at 312. His notes also indicated 

abnormalities in Ms. Amlet's tandem gait test and a Babinski 

reflex in her left foot. Record at 314. Dr. Chhabria’s 

assessment indicated acute exacerbation of MS and noted that Ms. 

Amlet was “not fit for work”; he advised her to “avoid hot 

environment” and discussed restarting Copaxone. Record at 314.

On November 6, 2009, Dr. Richard Bilinsky, a medical 

consultant for the state agency, completed a Physical Residual 

Functional Capacity (“RFC”) Assessment for Ms. Amlet. Record at 

323-330. In his assessment, Dr. Bilinsky found that Ms. Amlet 

could occasionally lift twenty pounds; frequently lift ten 

pounds; and sit, stand or walk (with normal breaks) for six 

hours in an eight hour shift with occasional postural 

limitations, far acuity visual limitations, and avoidance of 

extreme heat and hazards. Record at 324-27.

On February 4, 2010, in response to the Appeal Council’s 

request for Ms. Amlet's treatment records, Dr. Chhabria noted no 

changes from the reports reviewed in the November 6, 2009 

assessment; Ms. Amlet's MS was stable, there was no vertigo or 

stiffness in her legs, and the tandem gait test still showed 

abnormalities. Record at 336-46.

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 14 of 55 PageID #:533
15

On March 4, 2010, in a Request for Medical Advice for the 

Illinois SSA, Dr. Virgilio Pilapil reconsidered and affirmed Dr. 

Bilinsky’s November 6, 2009 findings. Record at 347-49.

On April 12, 2010, Ms. Amlet was hospitalized for a central 

nervous system vascular accident (“CVA”), though the record does 

not include any medical records documenting the incident or the 

hospitalization. There is a brief mention between Ms. Amlet's 

attorney and the ALJ concerning the issue and the ALJ does 

reference the hospitalization in his decision. Record at 17, 28-

29. But the Court is unable to make any independent findings 

concerning this event. 

On September 29, 2010, Ms. Amlet was brought to Northwest 

Lake Forest Hospital by ambulance and admitted for abrupt arm 

and leg stiffness; the stiffness resolved upon arrival in the 

emergency room. Record at 395. The records from that day 

indicate that, after a warm shower, Ms. Amlet's arms and legs 

felt stiff and tight, and that this had never happened 

previously; the nurse noted that Ms. Amlet's pain level was a 

five out of ten. Record at 395-97. The attending physician 

indicated impressions of MS and myalgias and instructed Ms. 

Amlet to continue with Copaxone and to follow-up with Dr. 

Chhabria. Record at 396. Aside from a heightened glucose level 

of 105 (60-100 being an acceptable range), all other tests were 

unremarkable. Record at 395-96.

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 15 of 55 PageID #:534
16

On October 5, 2010, Dr. Chhabria saw Ms. Amlet as a followup to her September 29, 2010 emergency room visit. Record at 

401. He noted that Ms. Amlet had experienced muscle spasms for 

30 minutes and feared an MS relapse, but otherwise all tests 

were unremarkable or unchanged from prior records. Record at 

401. 

On October 22, 2010, Dr. Chhabria completed an MS RFC 

Questionnaire. Record at 388. Dr. Chhabria confirmed Ms. Amlet’s 

MS diagnosis and that he had been treating her for more than 

four years; he gave a “guarded” prognosis and indicated that Ms. 

Amlet was not a malingerer. Record at 388. Dr. Chhabria reported 

that Ms. Amlet's symptoms included fatigue; balance problems; 

poor coordination; unstable walking; numbness, tingling or other 

sensory disturbance; and double or blurred vision/partial or 

complete blindness. Record at 388. He also checked “yes” when 

asked if Ms. Amlet had “significant and persistent 

disorganization of motor function in two extremities resulting 

in sustained disturbance of gross and dexterous movement or gait 

and station” and reported that Ms. Amlet had ataxia. Record at 

389. However, in the next question, he reported that Ms. Amlet 

did not have “significant reproducible fatigue of motor function 

with substantial muscle weakness on repetitive activity” as a 

result of her MS, and that, during the past year, she did not 

have any exacerbations of MS. Record at 389. Dr. Chhabria also 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 16 of 55 PageID #:535
17

checked “yes” when asked whether Ms. Amlet's fatigue was “best 

described as lassitude rather than fatigue of motor function”;

he also indicated that this was the kind of fatigue MS patients 

typically complain about. Record at 389. Noting that Ms. Amlet's 

symptoms, which were severe enough to interfere with attention 

and concentration, occurred often, Dr. Chhabria opined that Ms. 

Amlet was capable of tolerating low stress jobs. Record at 390.

He also confirmed that Ms. Amlet's impairments have lasted or 

can be expected to last at least twelve months. Record at 390.

Dr. Chhabria reported that Ms. Amlet could walk one city block 

without rest, sit for one hour before needing to get up, stand 

for thirty minutes before needing to rest, stand or walk for 

less than two total hours in an eight hour day (with normal 

breaks), lift twenty pounds frequently, crouch occasionally, 

climb ladders occasionally, and climb stairs occasionally.

Record at 390-92. Lastly, Dr. Chhabria indicated that Ms. Amlet 

should avoid all exposure to extreme heat, would need to take 

approximately three to four unscheduled breaks per day for ten 

to fifteen minutes, and would likely be absent from work about 

two days per month due to her impairments. Record at 391, 393

The ALJ’s decision

The ALJ issued his decision on April 29, 2011, finding that 

Ms. Amlet was “not disabled” and denying Ms. Amlet's claim for 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 17 of 55 PageID #:536
18

DIB and SSI. Record at 20. In his decision, the ALJ determined 

that Ms. Amlet met the insured status requirements of the Social 

Security Act through December 31, 2013 and had not engaged in 

substantial gainful activity since June 1, 2009. Record at 14.

He also found that Ms. Amlet has the following severe 

impairments: MS, status post stroke (CVA), and overweight 

habitus (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c)); he found, 

however, that Ms. Amlet does not have an impairment or 

combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of 

the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, 

Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 

416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926). Record at 14. The ALJ 

determined that Ms. Amlet has the Residual Functional Capacity 

to perform sedentary work which may, in an eight hour day, 

include lifting or carrying up to ten pounds occasionally;

lifting or carrying lighter items such as small hand tools or 

individual case files frequently; standing or walking with 

normal breaks for up to a combined total of two hours, but for 

no more than fifteen continuous minutes; sitting with normal 

breaks for up to six hours; and climbing ramps or stairs, 

balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching and crawling no more 

than occasionally. Record at 15. The ALJ determined that Ms. 

Amlet could not climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds, and must 

avoid exposure to extreme heat, height hazards, and machinery 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 18 of 55 PageID #:537
19

hazards. Record at 15. Additionally, he indicated that Ms. Amlet 

does not possess the capacity to recall, focus upon, attend to 

or carry out complex or detailed instructions or to perform 

complex or detailed tasks; but she does retain such capacity 

with respect to simple routine instructions and tasks at a 

sustained workmanlike pace. Record at 15. In making this 

determination, the ALJ found that the limitations set forth in 

Dr. Chhabria’s MS RFC Questionnaire on October 22, 2010 were not 

consistent with or supported by Dr. Chhabria’s own record of 

treatment (citing Exhibits 6F, Record at 295-318; 15F, Record at 

356-74; and 19F, Record at 398-403) or with the remainder of the 

medical record. Record at 18. In accordance with this RFC, the 

ALJ found that Ms. Amlet was unable to perform any of her past 

work, but that she could perform other jobs that existed in the 

national and local economies in significant numbers. Record at 

18-19. Finally, the ALJ noted that, at forty-five years old on 

the alleged disability onset date, Ms. Amlet was considered to 

be a “younger individual,” meaning that his findings were 

unaffected by the grid. Record at 19.

After the Appeals Council denied review, Ms. Amlet filed 

suit in this Court, seeking review of the Social Security 

Administration’s final agency decision. The parties consented to 

proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge, and the case 

was reassigned to this Court on September 28, 2012. The case is 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 19 of 55 PageID #:538
20

now before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment: Ms. 

Amlet asks the Court to reverse the Commissioner’s decision 

denying her benefits, or to remand the matter for further 

proceedings; the Commissioner seeks summary judgment affirming 

the agency’s decision.

Discussion

Applicable Law

An individual claiming a need for DIB or SSI must prove 

that she has a disability under the terms of the SSA. In 

determining whether an individual is eligible for benefits, the 

social security regulations require a sequential five step 

analysis. First, the ALJ must determine if the claimant is 

currently employed; second, a determination must be made as to 

whether the claimant has a severe impairment; third, the ALJ 

must determine if the impairment meets or equals one of the 

impairments listed by the Commissioner in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, 

Subpart P, Appendix 1; fourth, the ALJ must determine the 

claimant’s RFC, and must evaluate whether the claimant can 

perform her past relevant work; and fifth, the ALJ must decide 

whether the claimant is capable of performing work in the 

national economy. Knight v. Chater, 55 F.3d 309, 313 (7th Cir.

1995). At steps one through four, the claimant bears the burden

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 20 of 55 PageID #:539
21

of proof; at step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner. 

Id.

A district court reviewing an ALJ’s decision must affirm if 

the decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free 

from legal error. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Steele v. Barnhart, 290 

F.3d 936, 940 (7th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is “more 

than a mere scintilla”; rather, it is “such relevant evidence as 

a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 

1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). In reviewing an ALJ’s decision for

substantial evidence, the Court may not “displace the ALJ’s 

judgment by reconsidering facts or evidence or making 

credibility determinations.” Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 

841 (7th Cir.2007) (citing Jens v. Barnhart, 347 F.3d 209, 212 

(7th Cir. 2003)). Where conflicting evidence allows reasonable

minds to differ, the responsibility for determining whether a 

claimant is disabled falls upon the Commissioner, not the 

courts. Herr v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 178, 181 (7th Cir. 1990).

An ALJ must articulate his analysis by building an accurate 

and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusions, so that 

the Court may afford the claimant meaningful review of the SSA’s 

ultimate findings. Steele, 290 F.3d at 941. It is not enough

that the record contains evidence to support the ALJ’s decision; 

if the ALJ does not rationally articulate the grounds for that 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 21 of 55 PageID #:540
22

decision, or if the decision is not sufficiently articulated, so 

as to prevent meaningful review, the Court must remand. Id.

Analysis of Ms. Amlet’s Arguments

Ms. Amlet argues that the ALJ’s decision should be reversed 

or remanded because the ALJ (i) failed to properly determine 

whether Ms. Amlet’s impairments met or equaled listings 11.04 or 

11.09; (ii) failed to weigh and consider all of the evidence of 

record resulting in an erroneous RFC determination; (iii) made 

an improper credibility determination, and (iv) erroneously 

concluded, at step five, that she could perform other work. 

1. Impairment Listing

Ms. Amlet first argues that the ALJ failed to properly 

evaluate whether her impairments met or equaled the criteria 

required for Listings 11.04, Central Nervous System Vascular 

Accident or 11.09, Multiple Sclerosis. In particular, Ms. Amlet 

argues that the ALJ failed to (i) evaluate any of the evidence 

that was favorable to her claims; (ii) consider or assess her

visual impairments under Listings 2.02–2.04 as applicable to 

11.09(B), and (iii) consider the aggregate effect of Ms. Amlet’s 

impairments in determining whether they functionally equaled any 

Listing. Record at 448–50. 

In his decision, the ALJ found that “[Ms. Amlet] does not 

have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 22 of 55 PageID #:541
23

medically equals one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 

404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.” Record at 41. He reasoned that 

“neither section 11.04 or 11.09 are met because [Ms. Amlet’s] 

condition has not resulted in disorganization of motor function 

in two extremities resulting in sustained disturbance of gross 

and dexterous movements or gait and station.” Record at 42. Ms. 

Amlet argues that this is a “superficial and conclusory finding” 

and “unsupported.” Record at 448. Thus, the question before the 

Court is whether the ALJ’s finding is (i) specific to one of the 

three criteria found under 11.09, (ii) supported by substantial 

evidence and (iii) free from legal error. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 

Steele, 290 F.3d at 940.

When evaluating impairments caused by MS, the ALJ considers 

criteria set forth under Listing 11.09. Due to the episodic 

nature of MS conditions, “consideration should be given to 

frequency and duration of exacerbations, length of remissions, 

and permanent residuals.” 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, 

Appendix 1, § 11.00(D). Because a claimant need only demonstrate 

that her impairments meet the requirements of one of the three 

paragraphs under this listing: 11.09(A), 11.09(B), or 11.09(C), 

“an ALJ should mention the specific listings he is 

considering[;] his failure to do so, if combined with a 

‘perfunctory analysis,’ may require a remand.” Ribaudo v. 

Barnhart, 458 F.3d 580, 583 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Barnett v. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 23 of 55 PageID #:542
24

Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 2004); Brindisi ex rel. 

Brindisi v. Barnhart, 315 F.3d 783, 786 (7th Cir. 2003)). See 

also Scott v. Barnhart, 297 F.3d 589, 595 (7th Cir. 2002).

Indeed, “where the Commissioner's decision lacks evidentiary 

support or is so poorly articulated as to prevent meaningful 

review, the case must be remanded.” Steele, 290 F.3d at 940.

That said, however, the Court will “read the ALJ’s decision as a 

whole and with common sense.” Buckhanon ex rel. J.H. v. Astrue, 

368 Fed. App’x. 674, 678-679 (7th Cir. 2010) (explaining that an 

ALJ’s finding is not unreasoned where the ALJ’s analysis is not 

itemized into individual paragraphs, i.e. there is “no 

requirement of such tidy packaging”).

Section 11.09(A) provides criteria for evaluating 

disorganization of motor function when an individual is at rest. 

Specifically, the criteria under § 11.09(A) is cross-referenced 

with § 11.04(B), which requires that an individual show that, 

more than three months after a vascular accident, she exhibits 

“significant and persistent disorganization of motor function in 

two extremities, resulting in sustained disturbance of gross and 

dexterous movements, or gait and station.” 20 C.F.R. Part 404, 

Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 11.09(A), § 11.04(B). Furthermore, § 

11.04(B) also references § 11.00(C) which identifies that: 

[p]ersistent disorganization of motor function in the 

form of paresis or paralysis, tremor or other 

involuntary movements, ataxia and sensory disturbances 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 24 of 55 PageID #:543
25

(any or all of which may be due to cerebral cerbellar 

[sic], brain stem, spinal cord, or peripheral nerve 

dysfunction) which occur singly or in various 

combination, frequently provides the sole or partial 

basis for decision in cases of neurological 

impairment. The assessment of impairment depends on 

the degree of interference with locomotion and/or 

interference with the use of fingers, hands, and arms.

20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 11.00(C). 

Additionally, when considering § 11.09(A), the ALJ must also 

take “into account any further increase in muscle weakness 

resulting from activity.”2 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, 

Appendix 1, § 11.00(E). 

As made evident in the ALJ’s use of verbatim language 

(“disorganization of motor function in two extremities, 

resulting in sustained disturbance of gross and dexterous 

movements, or gait and station”), the ALJ was referring to 

Listing 11.09(A) when he found that Ms. Amlet’s impairments did 

not meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments in 20 

C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Ms. Amlet argues that, 

in rendering this decision, the ALJ failed to evaluate any of 

the evidence that was favorable to her claim and failed to 

consider the aggregate effect of her impairments. Specifically, 

Ms. Amlet argues that the ALJ failed to consider her treatment 

records from Dr. Chhabria, which noted severe headaches, 

 2 Determining whether the claimant’s impairments qualify under 11.09(A) or 11.09(C) 

depends on whether the motor abnormalities at issue occur during activity or at rest, 

i.e., if the abnormalities are present while the individual is at rest, 11.09(A) must 

be used, whereas, if the abnormalities occur during activity, then 11.09(C) is used. 

20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 11.00(E). 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 25 of 55 PageID #:544
26

dizziness, nausea, vomiting, obesity, lightheadedness, tandem 

gait abnormalities, weakness, and numbness to the right foot. 

She also argues that the ALJ erred in dismissing Dr. Chhabria’s 

recommendation that Ms. Amlet should avoid hot environments and 

that she was “not fit to work.” 

While it is true that the ALJ did not address these 

impairments directly in his finding under Step Three, he did 

address each in his analysis under Step Four. He noted that Ms. 

Amlet has been experiencing episodes of tiredness since June 

2009, that she reported a history of headaches which occur about 

two to three times per week, and that her medical records 

intermittently noted symptoms of dizziness and vomiting. Record 

at 15–17. He also noted, however, that no symptoms of headache, 

or extremity numbness or weakness were reported as of March 2008 

or on September 29, 2010, and that Ms. Amlet’s headaches have 

not required emergency room treatment and can be treated with 

Tylenol. In addition, he noted that no symptoms of dizziness or

vertigo were reported on September 3, 2009; February 4, 2010; or 

September 29, 2010. Id. Furthermore, the ALJ acknowledged that 

Dr. Chhabria identified Ms. Amlet as “overweight” in his 

treatment records after each of her visits; however, despite the 

fact that Dr. Chhabria never diagnosed Ms. Amlet as “obese,” the 

ALJ still addressed “obesity” as a factor in his analysis:

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 26 of 55 PageID #:545
27

Because there is no listing for obesity, this 

condition will be found to “meet” the requirements of 

a listing if an individual has another impairment that 

by itself meets the requirement of a listing or, if 

there is an impairment that in combination with 

obesity, meets the requirements of a listing.

Record at 15. 

With respect to her tandem gait abnormalities, Ms. Amlet 

asserts that Dr. Chhabria “continually noted” these 

abnormalities, however, the ALJ noted numerous occasions that 

Dr. Chhabria recorded that Ms. Amlet’s gait was normal or 

unremarkable: March 28, 2008; December 2008; April 1, 2009; and 

September 29, 2010. Record at 15–18.

Most notable to the Court’s analysis, however, is the 

requirement that the claimant must show that her impairments 

emerged “more than three months after a vascular accident.” 

There seem to be inconsistent records regarding when the alleged 

Central Nervous System Vascular Accident (“CVA”) occurred, or if 

it even occurred at all. The ALJ indicated that “Exhibit 16F 

contains notes regarding an April 12, 2010 hospitalization for 

stroke/CVA on April 12, 2010”; however, the ALJ also questioned 

Ms. Amlet’s attorney about the event, and the attorney advised 

the ALJ that “there was no stroke at that time.” Record at 17, 

28. 

Therefore, the Court finds that there is substantial 

evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that Ms. Amlet’s 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 27 of 55 PageID #:546
28

impairments did not meet or equal the criteria of Listing 

11.09(A).

Section 11.09(B) provides references to listings 2.02, 

2.03, and 2.043 for evaluating visual or mental impairments 

caused by MS. 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 

11.00(E). 

2.02 Loss of central visual acuity. Remaining vision 

in the better eye after best correction is 20/200 or 

less.

2.03 Contraction of the visual field in the better 

eye, with:

A. The widest diameter subtending an angle around 

the point of fixation no greater than 20 degrees.

OR

B. An MD of 22 decibels or greater, determined by 

automated static threshold perimetry that 

measures the central 30 degrees of the visual 

field (see 2.00A6d).

OR

C. A visual field efficiency of 20 percent or less, 

determined by kinetic perimetry (see 2.00A7c).

2.04 Loss of visual efficiency, or visual impairment, 

in the better eye:

A. A visual efficiency percentage of 20 or less 

after best correction (see 2.00A7d).

OR

B. A visual impairment value of 1.00 or greater 

after best correction (see 2.00A8d).

20 C.F.R. PART 404 APPENDIX 1, § 2.02–2.04.

Ms. Amlet argues that the ALJ did not analyze the criteria under 

listings 2.02-2.04 with respect to her headaches, blurred 

vision, and double vision. Although she acknowledges that the 

ALJ need not evaluate every piece of evidence, she contends that 

 3 § 11.09(B) also provides a reference to 12.02, which is omitted here, because the 

criteria under 12.02 are not applicable to the facts of this immediate case. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 28 of 55 PageID #:547
29

his failure to “evaluate any of the evidence that potentially 

supported [Ms. Amlet’s] claim does not provide much assurance 

that he adequately considered her case.” Record at 449.

§ 11.00(E) identifies that “[s]ensory abnormalities may 

occur, particularly involving central visual acuity,” and when 

the ALJ is considering a claimant’s central visual acuity in MS 

cases, the impairment “should be evaluated under the criteria in 

listing 2.02, taking into account the fact that the decrease in 

visual acuity will wax and wane.” 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, 

Appendix 1, § 11.00(E). Additionally, the ALJ should consider 

that “the decrease in visual acuity may occur after brief 

attempts at activity involving near vision, such as reading[, 

and that this] decrease in visual acuity may not persist when 

the specific activity is terminated, as with rest, but is 

predictably reproduced with resumption of the activity.” Id.

Although the ALJ did not expressly state that his analysis 

was in reference to the criteria under 2.02, his decision 

included a discussion of evidence pertaining to Ms. Amlet’s 

visual impairments. Specifically, he acknowledged Ms. Amlet’s 

problems with blurred vision, noting that it was an on-going 

issue with regular frequency, and he acknowledged that Ms. Amlet 

testified to double vision episodes in her left eye. Record at 

15. Additionally, he noted that Dr. Chhabria’s treatment notes, 

dated September 3, 2009, indicated that Ms. Amlet had been seen 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 29 of 55 PageID #:548
30

for a one month recurrence of blurred vision. Record at 17. On 

the other hand, the ALJ noted that Ms. Amlet has not experienced 

any episodes of double vision since she stopped working in June 

2009 and, with respect to her blurred vision, she can read the 

newspaper when wearing her glasses. Record at 15. The ALJ also 

noted that, when Ms. Amlet saw Dr. Chhabria in September 2009, 

she had been laid off from work and not been taking her Copaxone 

medication, and in an assessment of November 6, 2009, which was 

readopted in March 4, 2010, the state agency reviewing physician 

“noted that, although visual blurring may occur during acute MS 

exacerbations, there were no active visual limitations.” Record 

at 17. Lastly, Dr. Chhabria’s treatment notes from an October 5, 

2010 visit noted that “no visual abnormalities were reported.” 

Record at 18. 

Ms. Amlet did not provide any objective evidence to support 

a favorable finding under § 11.09B. Specifically, she failed to 

provide the Court with any medical assessment of her better 

eye’s vision acuity, i.e. whether it was worse than 20/200 or 

whether it met any of the criteria specified under §§ 2.02-2.04. 

Therefore, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence to 

support the ALJ’s finding that Ms. Amlet’s impairments did not 

meet or equal the criteria of Listing 11.09(B).

Section 11.09(C) provides criteria for evaluating the 

impairment of individuals who do not have muscle weakness or 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 30 of 55 PageID #:549
31

other significant disorganization of motor function at rest, but 

who have “[s]ignificant, reproducible fatigue of motor function 

with substantial muscle weakness on repetitive activity, 

demonstrated on physical examination, resulting from 

neurological dysfunction in areas of the central nervous system 

known to be pathologically involved by the multiple sclerosis 

process.” 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 11.09(C). 

Use of the criteria in § 11.09(C) is dependent upon (i) 

documenting a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, (ii) obtaining a 

description of fatigue considered to be characteristic of 

multiple sclerosis, and (iii) obtaining evidence that the system 

has actually become fatigued. The evaluation of the magnitude of 

the impairment must consider the degree of exercise and the 

severity of the resulting muscle weakness.

In addition to the collateral RFC analysis discussed under 

§ 11.09(A), the ALJ noted specifically that, on the October 22, 

2010 RFC Questionnaire, Dr. Chhabria checked “No” to Question 

#7, thereby indicating that Ms. Amlet did not have 

“[s]ignificant, reproducible fatigue of motor function with 

substantial muscle weakness on repetitive activity, demonstrated 

on physical examination, resulting from neurological dysfunction 

in areas of the central nervous system known to be 

pathologically involved by the multiple sclerosis process.” 

Record at 18, 389. Therefore, the Court finds that there is 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 31 of 55 PageID #:550
32

substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that Ms. 

Amlet’s impairments did not meet or equal the criteria of 

Listing 11.09(C).

2. RFC Determination

Next, Ms. Amlet argues that the ALJ failed to properly 

weigh and consider all of the evidence of record, thus resulting 

in an erroneous RFC determination. In particular, she argues 

that the ALJ (i) erred in discounting the severity of her 

headaches, (ii) did not give enough credit to the treating 

physician’s impressions, and (iii) failed to take into 

consideration her obesity. Record at 450.

When assessing an individual's RFC, the ALJ is determining 

“the most [an individual] can still do despite [her] 

limitations," and he "must evaluate all limitations that arise 

from medically determinable impairments, even those that are not 

severe." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 

558, 563 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing S.S.R. 96-8p). As with the 

prior issue pertaining to impairment listings, the Court will 

affirm the ALJ’s RFC determination if it is supported by 

substantial evidence and free from legal error. 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g); Steele, 290 F.3d at 940.

Ms. Amlet argues that the ALJ failed to properly consider 

evidence with respect to her headaches in his RFC determination. 

Record at 450. First, Ms. Amlet suggests that the ALJ had a duty 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 32 of 55 PageID #:551
33

to assess the severity of her headaches, as well as label them 

“severe” or “not severe.” Record at 451. Second, she claims that 

the ALJ “erroneously dismisse[d] consideration of the effect of 

[her headaches] because she only took over-the-counter pain 

medication and did not seek pain treatment at an ER.” Id. Third, 

she asserts that his failure to find that her headaches were 

“severe” demonstrates that he disregarded the effect of her 

headaches when he evaluated her ability to work. Id.

While it is true that the ALJ did not find Ms. Amlet’s 

headaches to be “severe impairments” at step two, the ALJ does 

not need to find that every alleged impairment is “severe” or 

“not severe.” Raines v. Astrue, No. 06-cv-0472-DFH-TAB, 2007 WL 

1455890, at *7 (S.D. Ind. April 23, 2007). See also 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1521 (defining and explaining what qualifies an impairment 

as “not severe”). Rather, this is “merely a threshold 

requirement,” insofar as the claimant must show that she suffers 

from one or more severe impairments, before the ALJ continues 

the analysis under step three. Hickman v. Apfel, 187 F.3d 683, 

688 (7th Cir. 1999). So long as the claimant shows that at least 

one impairment is severe, and the ALJ, in turn, continues the 

evaluation onto step three, “no error could result solely from 

[the ALJ’s] failure to label an impairment as ‘severe.’” Raines, 

2007 WL 1455890, at *7. In fact, the ALJ’s failure to label Ms. 

Amlet’s headaches as “severe” at Step Two has little bearing on 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 33 of 55 PageID #:552
34

whether or not he will consider them in later steps of the 

evaluation: after finding “that one or more of [the claimant’s] 

impairments is ‘severe,’ the ALJ then consider[s] the aggregate 

effect of [the claimant’s] entire constellation of ailments —

including those impairments that in isolation are not severe.” 

Golembiewski v. Barnhart, 322 F.3d 912, 918 (7th Cir. Ind. 2003) 

(emphasis added) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1523; Sims v. Barnhart, 

309 F.3d 424, 432 (7th Cir. 2002); Green v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 780, 

782 (7th Cir. 2000); Cunningham v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 496, 501 (8th 

Cir. 2000)). Accordingly, the ALJ did not have a duty to assess 

and classify the severity of Ms. Amlet’s headaches, and his 

failure to find them to be “severe” is not grounds for remand.

Ms. Amlet next contends that, when the ALJ determined her

RFC, he failed to consider her headaches and the limitations 

caused thereby. After finding that one or more of the 

claimant’s impairments is “severe” in Step Two, the ALJ must 

consider all of the claimant’s impairments (both “severe” and 

“not severe”) and their aggregate effects in the subsequent 

evaluation steps; as such, the ALJ was required to consider Ms. 

Amlet’s headaches in his evaluations. But the ALJ’s decision 

makes multiple references to Ms. Amlet’s headaches through his 

discussion of her testimony, Dr. Chhabria’s treatment records, 

and other medical records. Record at 15-18. And “the [ALJ] found 

that [Ms. Amlet’s] medically determinable impairments [notably, 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 34 of 55 PageID #:553
35

her MS] could reasonably be expected to cause [her] alleged 

symptoms.” Record at 18. “Symptoms” are “[the claimant’s] own 

description of [his] physical or mental impairments” and the 

intensity and persistence of these impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1528(a), 404.1529. More to the point, in his decision, the 

ALJ stated that “[i]n making this finding, [he] has considered 

all symptoms” Record at 15. 

When evaluating a claimant’s ability to work, the ALJ must 

consider all “symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1528(a), 404.1529. Such 

statements alone, however, “are not enough to establish that 

there is a physical or mental impairment”; the ALJ must also 

consider “the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be 

accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence4 and 

other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1528(b) and (c), and § 

404.1529. “Objective medical evidence” is particularly useful to 

an ALJ when “making reasonable conclusions about the intensity 

and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms and the effect those 

symptoms, such as pain, may have on [a claimant’s] ability to 

work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). On the other hand, “other 

evidence” includes statements or reports “about [the claimant’s] 

medical history, diagnosis, prescribed treatment, daily 

activities, efforts to work, and any other evidence showing how 

 4 Objective medical evidence includes “medical signs” or “laboratory findings,” i.e. 

“anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities [or phenomena],” which must 

be shown by medically-acceptable clinical, or laboratory, diagnostic techniques, 

respectively. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1528(b) and (c), and § 404.1529.

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 35 of 55 PageID #:554
36

[the] impairment(s) and any related symptoms affect [the 

claimant’s] ability to work”; these statements may be provided 

by the claimant, her treating or non-treating physician, or 

others. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. See §§ 404.1512(b)(2)–(8), 

404.1513(b)(1), (4), and (5), and (d). Moreover, with respect to 

“other evidence,” the ALJ will consider any of the following 

factors that are relevant to the claimant’s symptoms:

i. daily activities; 

ii. the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of 

pain or other symptoms; 

iii.precipitating and aggravating factors; 

iv. the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects 

of any medication currently being taken, or taken 

in the past, to alleviate pain or other symptoms; 

v. treatment, other than medication, for relief of 

pain or other symptoms; 

vi. any measures that the claimant takes or has taken 

to relieve pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat 

on the back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every 

hour, sleeping on a board, etc.); and 

vii.other factors concerning functional limitations and 

restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.

20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3)(i-vii).

Consistent with the evaluating criteria identified above,

the ALJ’s assessment begins with an accounting of Ms. Amlet’s 

symptoms. Record at 15-16. Specifically, he notes that Ms. Amlet 

“reported a history of headaches which initially occurred about 

twice per week,” though “[a]t present, she experiences episodes 

2 to 3 times per week”; “[s]he has not required emergency room 

treatment for headaches; and [she] takes Tylenol for pain.” 

Record at 16. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 36 of 55 PageID #:555
37

Ordinarily, his next step would have included evaluating 

any objective medical evidence with respect to her headaches. 

While his decision includes numerous references to MRIs, brain 

scans, and neurological exams, it does not include any objective 

medical evidence with respect to Ms. Amlet’s headaches.

Although the medical records contained multiple MRI reports, 

which ultimately revealed brain patterns consistent with 

multiple sclerosis, none of these reports specifically addressed

or substantiated Ms. Amlet’s headaches symptoms. 

Next, the ALJ should have considered “other evidence.” 

Calling upon Ms. Amlet’s medical history, the ALJ’s decision 

identifies three separate visits when Dr. Chhabria documented 

Ms. Amlet’s complaints of headaches: April 1, and September 3, 

2009, and October 5, 2010. Record at 16-18. He also considered 

the RFC assessment prepared by the state agency’s consulting 

physician, Dr. Bilinsky. In particular, he noted that Dr. 

Bilinsky limited Ms. Amlet’s “light” residual capacity “with a 

need to avoid extremes of heat and work place hazards.” Record 

at 17. 

While the ALJ also noted Dr. Chhabria’s recommendations 

that Ms. Amlet avoid exposure to heat and hazards, his 

observation of Dr. Bilinsky’s recommendation and the additional 

remarks are especially relevant. The additional remarks in Dr. 

Bilinsky’s assessment connect the dots between Ms. Amlet’s (i) 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 37 of 55 PageID #:556
38

acute exacerbations, which are brought upon by her (ii) MS, in 

the form of (iii) headaches and (iv) blurry vision and (v) Ms. 

Amlet’s need to avoid concentrated exposure to heat and hazards. 

Record at 17. More to the point, the ALJ incorporated these

environmental limitations, i.e. avoiding heat and hazards, into 

the hypotheticals he posed to the VE at the hearing, and he 

included these same limitations in his RFC determination. Record 

at 68. Thus, the Court is persuaded that the ALJ did evaluate 

the impact of Ms. Amlet’s headaches; in fact, he found that they 

had some impact on her ability to work, and he accounted for 

that impact in his RFC. 

Lastly, the guidelines include factors that the ALJ may 

consider, if relevant. The ALJ’s decision shows that he 

considered at least three of the seven factors. He noted that: 

Ms. Amlet takes over-the-counter medications medication (factor 

iv), her headaches do not require her to go to the emergency 

room (factor vi), and, as previously mentioned, she should avoid 

such “aggravating factors” as extreme heat and hazards (factor 

ii). Thus, contrary to Ms. Amlet’s argument that the ALJ was in 

error when he considered her use of over-the-counter medications 

and her lack of emergency room visits, the ALJ was actually 

performing his evaluations exactly as the guidelines 

recommended.

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 38 of 55 PageID #:557
39

Next, Ms. Amlet argues that the ALJ’s actions equated to 

“playing doctor,” insofar as he “rejected all opinions of record 

and made [] medical conclusion[s] without any expert evidence.” 

She argues that the ALJ erred in not giving proper weight to Dr. 

Chhabria’s medical opinion, and even dismissing it without 

reason at times. She also claims that the ALJ failed to follow 

the medical opinion of the state agency consulting physician, 

Dr. Bilinsky. Record at 453.

Ordinarily, “[a] treating physician's opinion concerning 

the nature and severity of a claimant's injuries receives 

controlling weight only when it is ‘well-supported by medically 

acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and is 

‘consistent with substantial evidence in the record.’" 

Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. 2008) 

(quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)); Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 

F.3d 500, 503 (7th Cir. 2004). In deciding what weight to give 

an opinion, the applicable regulations “identify[] several 

factors that an ALJ must consider: ‘the length, nature, and 

extent of the treatment relationship; frequency of examination; 

the physician's specialty; the types of tests performed; and the 

consistency and support for the physician's opinion.’” Campbell 

v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 308 (7th Cir. 2010)(quoting Larson v. 

Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010) and citing 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404.1527(d)(2), 404.927(d)(2). Moreover, an ALJ may 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 39 of 55 PageID #:558
40

“discount a treating physician's medical opinion if the opinion 

‘is inconsistent with the opinion of a consulting physician or 

when the treating physician's opinion is internally 

inconsistent, as long as [the ALJ] minimally articulates his 

reasons for crediting or rejecting evidence of disability.’” 

Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842 (7th Cir. 2007) (emphasis 

added) (quoting Skarbek, 390 F.3d at 503). Finally, even when an 

ALJ has sufficient grounds to discount a treating physician’s 

opinion, the courts have also held that “an ALJ cannot make 

[his] own independent medical determinations about the 

claimant,” and “[he] improperly ‘play[s] doctor’ when he makes a 

medical conclusion without expert evidence.” Rousey v. Heckler, 

771 F.2d 1065, 1069 (7th Cir. 1985); Blakes ex rel. Wolfe v. 

Barnhart, 331 F.3d 565, 570 (7th Cir. 2003).

The Court first considers Ms. Amlet’s claim that the ALJ 

erred in assigning little probative value to the medical

opinions of her treating physician, Dr. Chhabria. Record at 452. 

Specifically, she alleges that the ALJ erred in finding that Ms. 

Amlet has experienced “no MS exacerbations, she has ‘responded 

to medication,’ and her MS was stable,” all of which, she 

claims, are contrary to Dr. Chhabria’s opinion. Record at 452.

It is true that the ALJ noted – twice -- that Ms. Amlet had no 

exacerbations. However, Ms. Amlet fails to note that, when both 

entries are read in their entirety, or even with just a few 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 40 of 55 PageID #:559
41

surrounding words, the ALJ is actually observing that no 

exacerbations occurred during, or in, the past year. More to the 

point, the ALJ made these statements specifically in reference 

to notes and answers found in Dr. Chhabria’s October 22, 2010 

RFC Questionnaire, in which Dr. Chhabria answered, “none” to 

Question #8: “During the past year what are the approximate 

dates of exacerbations of [MS]”. Record at 18, 389.

As for the ALJ’s statements that she “responded to 

medication” and was “stable,” Ms. Amlet argues that the ALJ 

failed to provide any support for his conclusory statements 

about her medication and he erred in finding that Ms. Amlet’s MS 

was stable because “a description of ‘stable’ only indicates no 

deterioration/worsening, not that she had improved to where she 

could work full time.” Record at 452. In point of fact, the 

complete sentence in the ALJ’s decision reads, “Treatment 

records from Dr. Chhabria indicate that claimant’s MS is stable 

and she has responded to medication.” Record at 18. This 

statement is supported by substantial evidence insofar as the 

“[t]reatment records” are Dr. Chhabria’s records dated February 

4, and October 5, 2010, and which state, “Copaxone tolerated 

well” and “MS stable on Copaxone; no side effect to Copaxone 

reported,” respectively. Record at 398, 401. Admittedly, 

“responded to medication” was not Dr. Chhabria’s exact turn of 

phrase; however, when taken in the context of Dr. Chhabria’s 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 41 of 55 PageID #:560
42

assessment that the MS was “stable on Copaxone,” the ALJ’s 

choice of words is consistent and does not suggest that he was 

“playing doctor.” 

Ms. Amlet argues that the ALJ refused to follow the medical 

opinion of the state agency consulting physician, Dr. Bilinsky. 

Record at 453. Moreover, she argues, the ALJ erred in calling 

into question Dr. Chhabria’s credibility and dismissing his 

opinion, which suggested that Ms. Amlet required greater 

limitations and that she was “not fit for work.”

Ms. Amlet claims that the ALJ erred in “fail[ing] to 

indicate why no acuity limitations were included in his RFC” 

when the state agency reviewing physician, Dr. Bilinsky, 

recommended that Ms. Amlet’s RFC visual limitations include “far 

acuity.” Record at 453. The ALJ did, in fact, provide a reason 

for not including visual limitations in his RFC determination. 

“[Dr. Bilinsky] noted that, although visual blurring may occur 

during MS exacerbations, there were no active visual 

limitations.” Record at 17. This reasoning is supported by the 

record insofar as (i) Dr. Bilinsky added a qualifying notation 

to the “far acuity” limitation that “[d]uring times of acute 

exacerbation the claimant’s vision may be blurry,” and (ii) Dr. 

Bilinsky noted Dr. Chhabria’s records which identified that 

while Ms. Amlet “[complains of] visual blurring,” under “Eyes,” 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 42 of 55 PageID #:561
43

her exam and visual fields were both “normal.” Record at 326, 

330.

Moreover, despite Ms. Amlet’s contention, the ALJ’s 

decision thus far illustrates quite clearly that the ALJ not 

only considered all medical opinions (from both the treating 

physician and the consulting physicians), but throughout his 

decision, he adopted many of their recommendations and 

incorporated their impressions into his findings.

To begin with, of the eight additional physical limitations 

that the ALJ adopted in his RFC determination, six are in 

accordance with, or exceed, any limitations suggested in Dr. 

Chhabria’s RFC Questionnaire or testified to by Ms. Amlet. The 

ALJ extended greater limitations to Ms. Amlet in (i) the maximum 

weight and frequency limits of the lift/carry category; (ii) the 

maximum continuous time in the stand/walk category, prohibiting 

(iii) climbing ladders, ropes or scaffolds and (iv) hazards. He 

also stipulated that Ms. Amlet (v) may climb ramps/stairs, 

balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl no more than 

occasionally and (vi) must avoid concentrated exposure to 

extreme heat. Record at 15. Moreover, the ALJ’s decision 

scrupulously noted the chronology of Ms. Amlet’s medical history 

and the complained of symptoms, test results, diagnoses, 

assessments and treatments therein. Record at 15–18. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 43 of 55 PageID #:562
44

Effectively, the ALJ’s RFC determination rejected two of 

Dr. Chhabria’s impressions: (i) the opinion that Ms. Amlet could 

sit for no more than one hour at a time, and (ii) the 

recommendation that Ms. Amlet is “not fit for work.” Ms. Amlet 

seems to have no quarrel with the ALJ’s limitations with respect 

to sitting.5 She does, however, dispute the ALJ’s rejection of 

the “not fit for work” conclusion.

While a treating physician’s opinion may be controlling 

with respect to the nature and severity of medical conditions, 

"a claimant is not entitled to disability benefits simply 

because her physician finds that she is ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to 

work.’” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 

863, 870 (7th Cir. 2000); Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 

1177 (7th Cir. 2001). See Johansen v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 283, 

288 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding that “disability” is not a medical

finding; rather, it’s a legal determination). These types of 

medical source opinions, e.g. “unable to work,” “disabled,” 

etc., are actually opinions that are exclusively reserved to the 

Commissioner, or the ALJ. 20 CFR 404.1527(d)(2); Schmidt v. 

 5 Had Ms. Amlet challenged the sitting conclusion, the challenge would have failed. 

The ALJ elected to follow the recommendation of the state agency reviewing physician, 

Dr. Bilinsky, who opined that Ms. Amlet was capable of sitting for up to six hours at 

a time in an eight hour workday. Despite the other factors which would support 

according Dr. Chhabria’s opinion significant weight (e.g. he was Ms. Amlet’s treating 

physician; he specialized in neurology, and, more specifically, treating MS patients; 

and he had been treating Ms. Amlet for nearly three to four years), Dr. Chhabria 

offered no explanation for his conclusion that Ms. Amlet could sit for no more than 

one hour at one time, nor did his treatment records ever indicate any reference to Ms. 

Amlet having any problems with sitting. Indeed, at the hearing, Ms. Amlet testified 

that she had no problems with sitting. Record at 58.

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 44 of 55 PageID #:563
45

Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842 (7th Cir. 2007). This is not to say 

that the treating physician’s opinion is of no import; rather, 

because this type of opinion directly speaks to “administrative 

findings that are dispositive of a case, i.e., that would direct 

the determination or decision of disability,” they cannot be 

afforded controlling weight. Accordingly, Dr. Chhabria’s opinion 

that Ms. Amlet is “not fit to work” is not controlling in these 

proceedings. 

Lastly, the ALJ’s decision specifically stated that “the 

limitations imposed [in Dr. Chhabria’s RFC Questionnaire] are 

not consistent with or supported by the doctors [sic] own record 

of treatment . . . or with the remainder of the medical record.” 

Record at 18. The ALJ explained that Dr. Chhabria’s “statement 

that [the] claimant is ‘not fit to work’ is unsupported by [Dr. 

Chhabria’s] own treatment notes.” Record at 18.

While the statement “not fit to work” does not have 

controlling weight here, Ms. Amlet is correct that it is still 

an opinion that should be considered by the ALJ. And, as with 

other medical opinions made by treating physicians, the ALJ must 

provide a reason for rejecting such evidence. See Skarbek, 390 

F.3d at 503 (holding that an ALJ may dismiss a treating 

physician’s opinion if the ALJ finds the opinion is “internally 

inconsistent, as long as [the ALJ] minimally articulates his 

reasons for crediting or rejecting evidence of disability”). 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 45 of 55 PageID #:564
46

In support of his conclusion, the ALJ cites the following 

notes from Dr. Chhabria’s records: “claimant’s MS is stable and 

she has responded to medication”; “[s]he has not had an 

exacerbation in the past year”; “[t]reatment notes dated 

February 4, 2010 reveal no new excerbations [sic] reported”; 

“[t]he Copaxone was tolerated well and no side effects were 

reported”; and “[Dr. Chhabria’s] own reports fail to reveal the 

type of significant clinical and laboratory abnormalities one 

would expect id [sic] the claimant were in fact disabled, and 

[he] did not specifically address this issue.” Record at 18.

Additionally, he noted a conflicting opinion in Dr. Bilinsky’s 

RFC Assessment: “reviewing physician opined as to a light 

residual capacity.” Record at 17 (emphasis added). The Court 

finds that the ALJ adequately explained his decision to discount 

Dr. Chhabria’s conclusion, and there is substantial evidence in 

the record to support this explanation. 

Next, Ms. Amlet argues that the ALJ erred in failing to 

sufficiently consider her obesity in the RFC and credibility 

findings. First, she claims that he failed to consider that her 

obesity “most certainly aggravated” her “neck pain, weakness, 

leg numbness, leg pain, myalgias, arm/leg stiffness, poor 

balance/coordination, unstable walking and musculoskeletal 

condition/MS.” Record at 453. Second, she argues that the ALJ 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 46 of 55 PageID #:565
47

failed to consider obesity in combination with all of her other 

severe and non-severe impairments.

The listing for obesity (9.09) no longer exists; in its 

stead, Social Security Rulings 02-1p provides the necessary 

guidance “concerning the evaluation of obesity in disability 

claims.” SSR 02-1p. When an individual claims obesity as an 

impairment, or “the evidence [provides sufficient notice to]

alert[] the ALJ that the individual ha[s] another relevant 

impairment,” the ALJ “must consider the effects of obesity 

together with the underlying impairments.” Prochaska v. 

Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731, 736 (7th Cir. 2006); Clifford, 227 F.3d 

at 873.

When the ALJ has identified “obesity as a medically 

determinable impairment, [he also needs to] consider any 

functional limitations resulting from the obesity in the RFC 

assessment, in addition to any limitations resulting from any 

other physical or mental impairments [that have been] 

identified.” SSR 02-1p. Moreover, when deciding whether the 

impairment is “severe” at step two, the ALJ must perform “an 

individualized assessment of the impact of obesity on an 

individual’s functioning.”6 SSR 02-1p. With respect to step 

 

6 This individualized assessment is required because “[t]here is no specific level of 

weight of BMI that equates with a ‘severe’ or a ‘not severe’ impairment” and “[there 

are no] descriptive terms for levels of obesity [which] establish whether obesity is 

or is not a ‘severe’ impairment.” SSR 02-1p, 2002 SSR LEXIS 1, 12 (Dec. 5, 2013).

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 47 of 55 PageID #:566
48

three, the ALJ “find[s] that an individual with obesity ‘meets’

the requirements of a listing if he or she has another 

impairment that, by itself, meets the requirements of a listing 

[or] if there is an impairment that, in combination with 

obesity, meets the requirements of a listing.” SSR 02-1p. 

However, “[the ALJ does] not make assumptions about the severity 

or functional effects of obesity combined with other 

impairments”; rather, he evaluates “each case based on the 

information in the case record.” SSR 02-1p. Finally, in steps 

four and five, the ALJ considers how the individual’s “[o]besity 

can cause limitation of function.”7 SSR 02-1p. SSR 02-1p 

requires an ALJ to assess “the effect obesity has upon the 

individual’s ability to perform routine movement and necessary 

physical activity within the work environment.” SSR 02-1p. 

Ms. Amlet alleged in her Prehearing Memorandum that she 

suffered from “obesity,” and she claimed that “[t]he combined 

effects of obesity with neurological impairments is greater than 

the effects of each of the impairments considered separately[, 

and that] her obesity has a cumulative affect with the other 

disabilities.” Record at 251. Accordingly, the ALJ had 

 7 Such limitations may affect an individual’s (i) exertional functions (such as 

sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling); (ii) ability to 

do postural functions (such as climbing, balance, stooping, and crouching); (iii) hand 

and finger manipulations; and (iv) ability to tolerate extreme heat, humidity, or 

hazards. SSR 02-1p, 2002 SSR LEXIS 1, 16 (Dec. 5, 2013)

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 48 of 55 PageID #:567
49

sufficient notice that he needed to assess Ms. Amlet’s alleged 

obesity as an impairment. 

Whether the ALJ considered obesity in his RFC determination 

is less clear, since he did not expressly indicate that he 

accounted for Ms. Amlet’s weight in his RFC determination. An

ALJ’s failure to explicitly consider the claimant’s weight may

be considered harmless error where “it is factored indirectly 

into the ALJ’s decision as part of the doctor’s opinion.” 

Skarbek, 390 F.3d at 504. And, more recently, courts have held

that “any error in failing to mention obesity is harmless if the 

claimant did not explain to the ALJ how her obesity aggravated 

her condition and rendered her disabled[; a] mere assertion that 

[claimant] is obese [does] not satisfy that burden.” Mueller v. 

Colvin, 524 Fed. App’x. 282, 286 (7th Cir. 2013); Prochaska, 454 

F.3d at 737; Skarbek, 390 F.3d at 504.

At step two, the ALJ included Ms. Amlet’s weight in his 

listing of “severe impairments.” Record at 14 (overweight 

habitus, 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)). At step three, 

he found that it did not meet or medically equal one of the 

listed impairments. Id. As there is no listing for obesity, the 

ALJ also noted in his decision that “this condition will be 

found to “meet” the requirements of a listing if an individual 

has another impairment that by itself meets the requirements of 

a listing or, if there is an impairment that in combination with 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 49 of 55 PageID #:568
50

obesity, meets the requirements of a listing.” Id. The ALJ also 

noted Dr. Chhabria’s treatment records and Dr. Bilinsky’s RFC 

assessment, which identified Ms. Amlet’s overweight status. Id.

at 16-17. In fact, in multiple earlier treatment records, Dr. 

Chhabria noted that he had counseled Ms. Amlet on weight 

reduction, thereby indicating his awareness and active medical 

interest in her weight. Lastly, and as previously discussed, of 

the eight physical limitations that the ALJ included in Ms. 

Amlet’s RFC, six were in accordance with, or exceeded, any 

limitations suggested in Dr. Chhabria’s RFC Questionnaire or 

testified to by Ms. Amlet. The remaining two limitations in 

conflict had to do with how long Ms. Amlet could sit and whether 

she could work; however, neither Ms. Amlet nor Dr. Chhabria 

submitted any evidence pertaining to, or testified regarding, 

how her weight affected her ability to sit or work, in general. 

As in Skarbek, the ALJ here adopted most of the limitations 

suggested by Dr. Chhabria, who had been treating Ms. Amlet for 

nearly four years and was aware of Ms. Amlet’s weight issue. 

Moreover, Ms. Amlet’s brief to this Court argues that the ALJ 

did not take into consideration that her obesity “most certainly 

aggravated” her “neck pain, weakness, leg numbness, leg pain, 

myalgias, arm/leg stiffness, poor balance/coordination, unstable 

walking and musculoskeletal condition/MS.” However, in her 

Prehearing Memorandum to the ALJ, her supposition as to the 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 50 of 55 PageID #:569
51

effects of her obesity were far more vague, only stating, “[t]he 

combined effects of obesity with neurological impairments is 

greater than the effects of each of the impairments considered 

separately[, and] her obesity has a cumulative affect with the 

other disabilities.” Notably, the ALJ only saw the latter 

statement. Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ’s failure 

to explicitly document the considerations taken in regard to Ms.

Amlet’s obesity is no more than harmless error.

3. Adverse Credibility

Next, Ms. Amlet challenges the ALJ’s determination that her 

statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting 

effects of her symptoms were inconsistent and, therefore, not

credible. Record at 454. According to Ms. Amlet, the ALJ 

improperly opined that her daily activities were not limited to 

the extent that one would expect from a “disabled individual.” 

Id. Moreover, she argues that he mischaracterized much of her 

testimony and oversimplified the manner and context in which she 

carried out activities, particularly with respect to her ability 

to complete chores and errands. Id. Lastly, Ms. Amlet argues

that the ALJ failed to provide any reasons to support his 

credibility finding. Id.

When reviewing adverse credibility determinations, the 

Court affords considerable deference to the ALJ’s determination, 

as it is the ALJ who “[is] in the best position to see and hear 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 51 of 55 PageID #:570
52

the witnesses and assess their forthrightness.” Powers v. Apfel, 

207 F.3d 431, 435 (7th Cir. 2000). The Court does not “undertake 

a de novo review of the medical evidence that was presented to 

the ALJ[; i]nstead, [it] examine[s] whether the ALJ's 

determination was reasoned and supported.” Elder v. Astrue, 529

F.3d 408, 413 (7th Cir. 2008). See also Jens, 347 F.3d at 213-14 

(7th Cir. 2003); Powers, 207 F.3d at 435. Accordingly, ALJs are 

required to “supply ‘specific reasons’ for a credibility 

finding”; simply stating “that ‘the individual’s allegations 

have been considered’ or that ‘the allegations are (or are not) 

credible’ is insufficient.” Golembiewski, 322 F.3d at 915 

(quoting SSR 96-7p).

Ms. Amlet argues that the ALJ called her credibility into 

question because “[her] daily activities are not limited to the

extent one would expect of a disabled individual.” Record at 454 

(emphasis added). In fact, the ALJ compared her activities not 

against those “of a disabled individual,” but rather against “[her]

complaints of disabling symptoms and limitations.” that she had 

proffered before the court. There is a considerable difference 

between these two statements. Within the construct of Ms. Amlet’s 

argument, the ALJ would have been comparing her activities 

against those of another individual with MS; however, as 

written, the ALJ was more accurately, noting the 

inconsistencies, and, therefore, the unreliability, of Ms. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 52 of 55 PageID #:571
53

Amlet’s testimony. Contrary to her argument, the ALJ did not 

determine that, because of these activities, she had the 

capability to work full-time; instead, he concluded that the 

“intensity, persistence, and limiting effects” of her symptoms 

did not coincide with those activities. 

Additionally, Ms. Amlet argues that the ALJ noted her 

ability to do daily chores, but that he pointedly “ignored her 

need for rest periods.” Record at 454. Not so. The ALJ 

explicitly noted, twice, that Ms. Amlet needed to rest when she 

performed chores. Moreover, his consideration of her need to 

rest is demonstrated in the evidence insofar as he reduced her 

RFC to sedentary and he limited her standing/walking time to 15 

minute segments. Accordingly, the Court finds that there was 

nothing “patently wrong” with the ALJ’s adverse credibility 

determination. 

4. Step Five

Lastly, Ms. Amlet argues that the ALJ’s Step Five finding 

was erroneous. That is to say, the ALJ’s analysis and findings 

in the earlier steps of the evaluation process resulted in a 

deficient RFC. His reliance upon the deficient RFC, in turn, 

resulted in incomplete hypotheticals — insofar as the ALJ failed 

to account for all of Ms. Amlet’s relevant limitations such as 

far acuity, obesity, lightheadedness, visual disturbance, 

dizziness, and blurred vision, as well as the severity of her 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 53 of 55 PageID #:572
54

ataxia and fatigue. The incomplete hypotheticals, she argues, 

resulted in the VE testifying that Ms. Amlet was “able to 

perform the requirements of representative sedentary-unskilled 

occupations,” and that “work in that field exists in 

“significant numbers in the national economy.” Thus, to the 

extent that the ALJ relied upon the VE’s testimony, Ms. Amlet 

contends that his finding that Ms. Amlet is “not disabled” is 

flawed and requires remand. 

In step five of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ 

must determine whether the claimant is able to do any other work 

considering her RFC, age, education and work experience. 20 

C.F.R. 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). To aid in making this 

determination, the ALJ may pose hypothetical questions to a VE, 

and these questions “must include all limitations supported by 

medical evidence in the record.” Steele, 290 F.3d at 942 (citing 

Cass v. Shalala, 8 F.3d 552, 555-56 (7th Cir. 1993); Gilbert v. 

Apfel, 175 F.3d 602, 604 (8th Cir. 1999); Winfrey v. Chater, 92 

F.3d 1017, 1024 n.5 (10th Cir. 1996)). However, “an incomplete 

hypothetical question may be cured by a showing that prior to 

testifying the vocational expert reviewed the claimant's record 

containing the omitted information.” Ragsdale v. Shalala, 53 

F.3d 816, 820 (7th Cir. Ill. 1995). That is the case here. At 

the outset of her testimony, the VE testified that she had 

reviewed the written information of the record in the case, 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 54 of 55 PageID #:573
55

listened to Ms. Amlet’s testimony, and, from her perspective, 

there were no “areas of the testimony or of the records . . . 

that require[d] any clarification.” Record at 62-63.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ reasonably relied on 

the VE’s testimony.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that (i) 

there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion 

that Ms. Amlet’s impairments did not meet or medically equal 

Listings 11.09(A), 11.09(B) and 11.09(C); (ii) the ALJ properly 

weighed and considered all of the evidence in making his RFC 

determination; (iii) there is substantial evidence to support 

the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination; and (iv) the ALJ’s 

Step Five Finding is not erroneous. Therefore, the Court finds, 

that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and 

should be affirmed. 

Accordingly, the Court denies Ms. Amlet’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment and grants the Commissioner’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment. 

Date: January 7, 2014

E N T E R E D:

_________________________________

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARLANDER KEYS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case: 1:12-cv-05249 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/07/14 Page 55 of 55 PageID #:574