UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

NANCY BALITEWICZ, )

Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CAUSE NO.:3:14-CV-2077-JEM

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, )

Acting Commissioner of Social Security )

Administration, )

 Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Remand [DE 22], filed by the Commissioner

on September 21, 2015. Plaintiff filed a response on September 29, 2015, and on October 13, 2015,

the Commissioner filed a reply. 

A. Procedural Background

On April 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income with the U.S. Social Security Administration (“SSA”). Plaintiff claims

that she is disabled and unable to work due to a combination of spinal disorders, depression, anxiety,

obesity, sleep apnea, and headaches. Plaintiff’s initial application was denied. On May 22, 2013,

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) W. Sampson held a hearing, and on August 29, 2013, he issued

a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for

review, leaving the ALJ’s decision as the final decision of the Commissioner. 

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking reversal of the adverse SSA

determination. On March 23, 2015, the parties filed consent forms assigning the case to the

undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings and to order entry

of a final judgement. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to decide this case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

On June 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a brief requesting that the matter be reversed and remanded

to the SSA for further proceedings, or alternatively, reversed and remanded with full benefits paid.

The Commissioner did not directly respond to Plaintiff, but instead, filed the instant Motion moving

for remand to the SSA for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of Section 405(g) of the

Social Security Act. 

B. Standard of Review

The Social Security Act authorizes judicial review of a final decision of the SSA. 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g). Under sentence four of Section 405(g), federal courts have “the power to enter, upon the

pleadings and transcript of record, a judgement affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of

the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a hearing.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g). At minimum, proper resolution of the Commissioner’s decision requires that the ALJ

explain his specific reasons for accepting or rejecting the proffered medical evidence and articulate

his analysis of that evidence in order to allow the reviewing court to trace the path of his reasoning

and to be assured that the ALJ considered the relevant evidence. See Scott v. Barnhart, 297 F.3d

589, 595–96 (7th Cir. 2002); Diaz v. Chater, 55 F.3d 300, 307 (7th Cir. 1995); Green v. Shalala, 51

F.3d 96, 101 (7th Cir. 1995). An ALJ must “‘build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence

to [the] conclusion’ so that, as a reviewing court, we may assess the validity of the agency’s final

decision and afford [a claimant] meaningful review.” Giles v. Astrue, 483 F.3d 483, 487 (7th Cir.

2007) (quoting Scott, 297 F.3d at 595)); see also O’Connor-Spinner v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 614, 618

(7th Cir. 2010) (reasoning that an “ALJ need not specifically address every piece of evidence, but

must provide a ‘logical bridge’ between the evidence and his conclusions.”).

2
C. Analysis

In this case, the parties agree that there were multiple errors in the ALJ’s decision denying

Plaintiff’s claim for benefits and that a reversal and remand of the Commissioner’s decision pursuant

to sentence four of Section 405(g) is warranted. The dispute is over the grounds for reversal and

remand and what concomitant instructions the ALJ should be provided. The Commissioner requests

reversal and remand pursuant to sentence four of Section 405(g) and a de novo hearing with an the

entry of a new decision from the ALJ, but Plaintiff argues that the Commissioner’s request is too

general. She requests that the Court order the Commissioner to respond to the issues raised in her

brief and reverse and remand pursuant to sentence four of Section 405(g) with an order requiring

that the ALJ consider the issues she raises in her brief, or alternatively, reverse and order full

benefits paid. 

In the instant Motion, the Commissioner requests that on remand the Court order the ALJ

to

reevaluate Plaintiff’s mental residual functional capacity and include

all of her credible limitations that adequately reflect her capabilities;

offer Plaintiff the opportunity for a hearing, take further action to

complete the administrative record, and issue a new decision. The

ALJ should explain how Plaintiff’s mental impairments limit her

ability to perform work related activities, and should support his

findings with the medical and nonmedical evidence of record.

Plaintiff contends that this proposed language simply requires the ALJ to follow the law without

clarifying his previous errors. Plaintiff argues that if the Court does not award paid benefits, the ALJ

should be specifically required on remand to consider the medical opinions of her treating sources,

Dr. Hunter and NP Meeks, the work limitations attendant to her chronic headaches, and her

difficulties with concentration, persistence, and pace.

Despite Plaintiff’s argument, the language proposed by the Commissioner provides more

3
direction than simply directing the ALJ to follow the law. Although Plaintiff argues that the

Commissioner’s remand language does not address the arguments she raises in her brief, the

requirement that the ALJ reevaluate all of Plaintiff’s credible limitations and support those findings

with specific medical evidence necessarily encompasses those arguments. The Court agrees with

Plaintiff that the ALJ’s initial error of overlooking the opinion evidence of Dr. Hunter and NP

Meeks demands that Plaintiff’s request for a specific remand instruction be granted to avoid the

possibility that a similar error is repeated, and that instruction will be incorporated. Degrazio v.

Colvin, 558 Fed. Appx. 649, 650–51 (7 th Cir. 2014) (holding that a sentence four remand “depends

on a finding of error in the Commissioner’s decision.”).

Plaintiff also requests that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision and remand for

an award of benefits. However, an award of benefits is not proper when there remain outstanding

factual issues, Briscoe v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 356 (7th Cir. 2005), and the record does not yet

support a finding of disability. Allord v. Asture, 631 F.3d 411, 417 (7th Cir. 2011). In this case, the

parties agree that the ALJ failed to consider the entirety of the record. That the ALJ failed to

properly consider all the evidence, particularly the evidence of Plaintiff’s treating medical providers,

does not support a finding by this Court that the evidence demonstrates Plaintiff’s disability under

the Social Security Act. The ALJ must review the record in accordance with this requirement and

fully explain how all of Plaintiff’s limitations are accounted for, supported by evidence, and

incorporated by into her RFC. In this case, because the ALJ has not considered all the relevant

evidence, this can only be resolved through a remand for further proceedings.

D. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS, but for relief different than

4
requested, the Commissioner’s Motion to Remand [DE 22], REVERSES the Administrative Law

Judge’s decision, and REMANDS this matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant

to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

On remand, the Appeals Council will direct the ALJ to reevaluate Plaintiff’s mental residual

functional capacity and include all of her credible limitations that adequately reflect her capabilities.

Plaintiff will be afforded the opportunity to testify, submit evidence, including the medical opinion

of treating sources Dr. Hunter and NP Meeks, and present arguments; the ALJ will adequately

explain how Plaintiff’s mental impairments limit her ability to perform work related activities and

will account for her limitations attendant to chronic headaches, concentration, persistence, and pace.

The ALJ will support his findings with the medical and nonmedical evidence of record. If necessary,

the ALJ will obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony to assist in determining what jobs

exist in significant numbers for Plaintiff in the national economy, and the ALJ will issue a new

decision.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff and

against the Commissioner.

So ORDERED this 25th day of January, 2016.

s/ John E. Martin 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

5