UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CHARLES B. TIDWELL, JR., )

)

Plaintiff )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-210 RLM

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant )

OPINION AND ORDER

Charles Tidwell seeks judicial review of the final decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for disability insurance

benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423. The court has jurisdiction

over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). For the reasons that follow, the

court affirms the Commissioner’s decision.

Mr. Tidwell asserts disability as of February 20, 2010 and ending December

31, 2012. The ALJ found that Mr. Tidwell

(1) hadn’t engaged in substantial gainful activity since February 20,

2010;

(2) had severe impairments, including morbid obesity, degenerative disc

disease, facet arthritis, obstructive sleep apnea, chronic pain

syndrome, fibromyalgia, degenerative changes to the bilateral
shoulders post bilateral shoulder surgical intervention, and a major

depressive disorder; 

(3) had non-severe impairments that included hypertension, Barrett’s

Esophagus, gastro-esophageal-reflux disease, asthma, chronic

obstructive pulmonary disease, degenerative changes to the right

knee and foot including late effects of a right foot fracture, abnormal

cholesterol and triglyceride levels, abnormal vitamin levels, and low

testosterone levels; 

(4) didn’t have an impairment or combination of impairments that met

or equaled the severity of any impairment in the regulations; and

(5) had the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined

in the regulations with physical limitations,1 and, while unable to

perform his past relevant work, could perform other jobs, which

include, but were not limited to, a production assembler (2,000 jobs

regionally and 325,000 nationally), a bench assembler (1,200 jobs

regionally and 130,000 nationally), and a small products assembler

(1,500 jobs regionally and 275,000 nationally).

1

 The ALJ concluded that through the date last insured, Mr. Tidwell “had the residual

functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b)” with limitations of

“occasional pushing/pulling and overhead reaching, as well as frequent handling and reaching in

all other directions with the right upper extremity, occasional overhead reaching and frequent

pushing/pulling and reaching in all other directions with the left upper extremity, frequent use

of foot controls with the bilateral lower extremities, no crawling or climbing of ladders, ropes, and

scaffolds, no more than occasional climbing of ramps and stairs, stooping, kneeling, and

crouching, frequent balancing, no exposure to unprotected heights or motor-vehicle operation, no

more than occasional exposure to humidity, pulmonary irritants, temperature extremes, vibration,

and unpredictable moving mechanical parts.” Rec., at 16.

2
The ALJ concluded that Mr. Tidwell wasn’t disabled within the meaning of the Act

and wasn’t entitled to benefits. The Appeals Council denied his request for review,

making the ALJ’s amended decision the final decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security. Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 107 (2000); Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d

1155, 1160 (7th Cir. 2010). This appeal followed.

Mr. Tidwell claims the ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of his treating

psychiatric therapist and improperly rejected his allegations of pain without

offering a reasonable, supported rationale. Mr. Tidwell asks the court to either

reverse the Commissioner’s decision and award benefits or remand the case for

further proceedings.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The issue before the court isn’t whether Mr. Tidwell is disabled, but whether

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision that he is not. Scott v. Astrue,

647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011); Nelms v. Astrue, 553 F.3d 1093, 1097 (7th Cir.

2009). Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402

U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1160 (7th Cir. 2010). In

reviewing the ALJ’s decision, the court can’t reweigh the evidence, make

independent findings of fact, decide credibility, or substitute its own judgment for

that of the Commissioner, Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 513 (7th Cir. 2009);

Powers v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 431, 434-435 (7th Cir. 2000), but, instead, must

3
conduct “a critical review of the evidence, considering both the evidence that

supports, as well as the evidence that detracts from, the Commissioner’s

decision.” Briscoe v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 351 (7th Cir. 2005). While the ALJ

isn’t required “to address every piece of evidence or testimony presented, he must

provide a ‘logical bridge’ between the evidence and the conclusions so that [the

court] can assess the validity of the agency’s ultimate findings and afford the

claimant meaningful judicial review.” Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1160 (7th

Cir. 2010). “At a minimum, an ALJ must articulate his analysis of the evidence in

order to allow the reviewing court to trace the path of his reasoning and to be

assured that the ALJ considered the important evidence.” Ali v. Colvin, No. 2:14-

CV-305, 2015 WL 5474636, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 15, 2015).

II. DISCUSSION

Opinion of Treating Therapist

Mr. Tidwell says that even though his treatment history with Rita Micheff,

LCSW, began after the December 2012 end of the insured period, the ALJ should

have considered her findings because the symptoms she noted began before long

before that date. The ALJ did take note of and consider the symptoms Ms. Micheff

reported in her February 2013 intake notes – e.g., Mr. Tidwell’s depression,

chronic pain, hospitalization for a suicide attempt, sleep disturbance, high blood

pressure, fibromyalgia – in the parts of his report addressing the findings and

conclusions of physicians who provided treatment to Mr. Tidwell within the

4
insured period. So contrary to Mr. Tidwell’s claim, the ALJ considered the

symptoms Ms. Micheff noted.

Mr. Tidwell next claims the ALJ erred by finding that Ms. Micheff’s “medical

opinion was not relevant to [his] mental functioning prior to December 2012.”

Because Ms. Micheff is a licensed clinical social worker, her submission doesn’t

qualify as a “medical opinion,” see SSR 06-03p (Aug. 9, 2006) (information from

“licensed clinical social workers . . . cannot establish the existence of a medically

determinable impairment”), and a review of her submissions shows that she

offered no explanations or support for her opinions and no medical findings to

support any of her conclusions. Specifically,

! In July 2013, six months after Mr. Tidwell’s last insured date, Ms.

Micheff completed a “Mental Residual Functional Capacity

Questionnaire,” on which she checked boxes indicating that Mr.

Tidwell (1) was unable to meet competitive standards to complete a

normal workday and workweek without interruptions from

psychologically based symptoms, (2) was unable to meet competitive

standards to perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable

number and length of rest periods, and (3) had no useful ability to

maintain regular attendance and be punctual within customary,

usually strict tolerances. With respect to those three findings, the

questionnaire asked the person responding to “explain limitations .

5
. . and include the medical/clinical findings that support this

assessment.” Ms. Micheff left that section blank. 

! In response to the question asking whether Mr. Tidwell’s “psychiatric

condition exacerbate(s) [his] experience of pain or any other physical

symptom,” Ms. Micheff responded, “Yes.” However, the next section,

which asked, “If yes, please explain,” was left blank. 

! Ms. Micheff lastly indicated that she anticipated Mr. Tidwell’s

“impairments or treatment” would cause him to be absent from work

“more than four days per month” and could be expected to last at

least twelve months. She offered no supporting information and didn’t

obtain the co-signature of a concurring physician. See Rec., at 1030

(“Social Security will give greater weight to opinions signed by Ph.d.’s,

M.D.’s or D.O.’s. Please have a doctor review this form and countersign it, if he/she concurs with the above.”).

The regulations specify that the ALJ must consider the “supportability” of an

opinion, giving more weight to opinions that present relevant evidence and a

supporting explanation. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3); 416.927(c)(3). Because no

relevant evidence or supporting explanations support Ms. Micheff’s submissions,

the ALJ didn’t err in his decision to give her opinion no weight.

Mr. Tidwell also says the ALJ wrongly concluded that Ms. Micheff’s findings

relating to his level of functioning were inconsistent with his level of functioning

before or right after his last insured date. Mr. Tidwell relies on Ms. Micheff’s July

6
1, 2013 findings, issued six months after his last insured date, that he had “no

useful ability to function” when it came to maintaining regular and punctual

attendance and would be “unable to meet competitive standards” in completing

a normal workweek without interruption and performing at a consistent pace. Mr.

Tidwell claims the ALJ failed to properly explain his reasons for rejecting Ms.

Micheff’s opinion. The record doesn’t provide a basis for Mr. Tidwell’s claim that

Ms. Micheff issued a well-supported opinion. Her responses to the Mental

Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaire have no supporting explanations or

medical findings. And while Mr. Tidwell complains that the ALJ didn’t explain his

conclusion that Ms. Micheff’s findings relating to his level of functioning were

inconsistent with prior conclusions on that issue, the record shows that the ALJ

reviewed the medical evidence issued before December 31, 2012, the date last

insured, and found, in relevant part, that 

– Mr. Tidwell “possesses moderate restriction in his activities of daily

living” and “mild difficulties in social functioning,”

– Mr. Tidwell “possesses moderate difficulties in his ability to

maintain concentration, persistence, or pace,”

– the severity of Mr. Tidwell’s mental impairments didn’t meet or

equal the paragraph B or paragraph C criteria for the adult mental

disorders listings in 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments,

– Mr. Tidwell’s response to treatment during 2012 was “best

evidenced by the result of his psychological consultative examination at the

7
end of 2012, which indicated good capabilities with regard to sustaining

concentration, persistence, and pace as [he] was able to perform basic math

computations without error and persist in executing the serial-sevens

exercise without error but did not some deficiencies in short-term memory

and immediate recall function, [and] demonstrated an ability to interact in

a socially appropriate manner with the consultative examiner,”; and

– Mr. Tidwell’s “ability to concentrate upon and persist in games of

poker throughout the course of a five-day-long tournament at a level which

enabled him to win $9,000.00 in early January 2013 lends credence to the

assertion that [his] ability to sustain concentration, persistence, and pace

in the presence of others was, through the date last insured, not diminished

beyond the capacity to understand, remember, and carry out simple

instructions, make judgments on simple work-related decisions, interact

appropriate with supervisor and co-workers in a routine work setting, and

respond to usual work situations and changes in a routine work setting.” 

An ALJ’s decision “must be based upon consideration of all the relevant

evidence . . . and ‘must articulate at some minimal level his analysis of the

evidence.’” Orienti v. Astrue, 958 F. Supp. 2d 961, 972 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (quoting

Herron v. Shalala, 19 F.3d 329, 333-334 (7th Cir. 1994)). And while an ALJ must

provide “a logical bridge” from the evidence to his conclusion, he “need not provide

a complete written evaluation of every piece of testimony and evidence.” Murphy

v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 811, 815 (7th Cir. 2014). Based on the totality of the ALJ’s

8
findings relating to Mr. Tidwell’s level of functioning, the lack of an additional

explanation at page 13 of the Amended Decision about the lack of weight to be

afforded Rita Micheff’s opinion isn’t error. The record supports the ALJ’s

conclusion that Ms. Micheff’s July 2013 findings relating to Mr. Tidwell’s level of

functioning weren’t consistent with findings issued prior to or immediately after

Mr. Tidwell’s date last insured, and Mr. Tidwell hasn’t pointed to any medical

evidence in the record that he claims was consistent with Ms. Micheff’s findings

but ignored by the ALJ. 

The ALJ didn’t err in discounting the opinion of Rita Micheff, LCSW.

Pain Allegations

Mr. Tidwell claims the ALJ improperly rejected his allegations of disabling

pain caused by fibromyalgia and challenges the ALJ’s finding that the evidence

about his fibromyalgia was minimal. Mr. Tidwell says the ALJ admitted that the

record shows positive signs of fibromyalgia in early 2011, a diagnosis of

fibromyalgia in 2012 after a tender point examination, an inability to treat his

pain with Cymbalta or Ibuprofen, and an ongoing level of preoccupation with

symptoms of pain through 2012, findings Mr. Tidwell says contradict the ALJ’s

conclusion that the evidence of his fibromyalgia was minimal. Mr. Tidwell also

says the ALJ’s discussion of his struggle with pain doesn’t paint the whole picture:

even though the ALJ found that he has had chronic pain for decades, in his

decision the ALJ “cherry picked from the record to find any evidence of

9
improvement” while omitting discussions of relevant findings from his pain

management physician. According to Mr. Tidwell, the ALJ failed to consider that

(i) although he reported to his treating physician in September 2012 that his low

back pain had lessened, he also reported his concern that he had plateaued and

the relief from his medications wasn’t lasting long enough, (ii) in November 2012

he reported that his pain was the “same” and acupuncture hadn’t helped, (iii) his

morphine dosage was increased by his pain management physician in late 2012,

(iv) in March 2013 he underwent implantation of a spinal cord stimulator system

for his back pain, and (v) he reported to his treating physician in May 2013 that

based on the lessening of his dosages of medication, his pain was “worse,” he

couldn’t sleep, he was having pain in his right leg and back, and he was noticing

more trouble with his neck and numbness in his arms. 

According to Mr. Tidwell, his medical records show that in May 2010 he

started complaining about fluctuating symptoms that he says are associated with

fibromyalgia: shortness of breath, heartburn, rashes, anxiety, fatigue, depression,

irritability, muscle pain, weakness, numbness and tingling sensations, difficulty

sleeping, diminished appetite, and frequent urination. In support, he cites to SSR

12-2p, which states that fibromyalgia “is a complex medical condition

characterized primarily by widespread pain.” Mr. Tidwell maintains the ALJ

displayed a misunderstanding of his medical condition and failed to consider his

ongoing efforts to treat his pain. Mr. Tidwell concludes that the ALJ’s decision was

“patently wrong.”

10
The court reads the ALJ’s opinion differently. The ALJ specifically addressed

the following symptoms and evidence relating to Mr. Tidwell’s physical condition:

! Degenerative disc disease and facet arthritis. Noting that the medical

evidence showed “multi-level degenerative changes” to Mr. Tidwell’s

cervical and lumbar spine, prior fusion surgery, and symptoms of

numbness in his extremities, the ALJ found that the evidence

“consistently and repeatedly indicates that [Mr. Tidwell’s] ‘fine motor

control is normal,’ his grip strength is intact and so is sensory

function in all extremities, and EMG testing performed in November

2011 was ‘essentially normal.’”

! Lumbar degenerative disc disease. The ALJ found that even though

Mr. Tidwell complained of low back pain radiating to his lower

extremities, the EMG testing of his bilateral lower extremities was

“negative for acute radiculopathy;” in addition, Mr. Tidwell reported

benefit from treatment “via MS Contin and TENS Unit therapy,” he

successfully completed outpatient therapy for low back pain in

October 2011, having met all physical therapy goals, and, except in

the aftermath of injuries and surgical intervention, Mr. Tidwell’s “gait

has been predominately normal, and testing consistently indicates

intact bilateral lower extremities strength, with the most recent

evidence from [his] November 2012 medical consultative examination

11
also noting intact lumbar range-of-motion and negative straight-legraise testing.” 

! Degenerative changes to bilateral shoulders status, post bilateral

shoulder surgical intervention. The ALJ noted Mr. Tidwell’s right

shoulder surgery in February 2008 and left shoulder arthroscopy

with rotator-cuff repair in December 2009, and noted, as well,

evidence from April 2010 showing that Mr. Tidwell was making

“excellent progress” in therapy for his left shoulder. The ALJ found

that the evidence of improvement was consistent with subsequent

evidence “from 2011 and 2012 detailing the level of activities of daily

living engaged in by [Mr. Tidwell] including cooking, driving, mowing

the lawn with a walk-behind mower, and working on automobiles. .

. . [T]his level of activity is consistent with subsequent objective

testing indicating generally intact bilateral upper extremities

strength, good or intact bilateral shoulder range-of-motion, and

normal fine- and gross-motor testing.”

! Fibromyalgia. The ALJ noted Mr. Tidwell’s first diagnosis of “probable

fibromyalgia” was in early 2012 and found that the evidence directly

relating to fibromyalgia was minimal: “The evidence does indicate

some response initially to a regimen of Cymbalta, though [Mr. Tidwell]

did opine in mid-2012 that it was not helping like it used to; however,

aside from the preceding, the only other relevant evidence is a

12
notation from November 2012 that [Mr. Tidwell] had begun engaging

in a fibromyalgia treatment group which he opined was ‘[h]elpful.’” 

! Chronic pain syndrome. The ALJ stated Mr. Tidwell had coped with

his chronic pain for many years by taking high-dose ibuprofen, but

had to discontinue that medication when esophageal issues

developed. The ALJ found that even though Mr. Tidwell could no

longer use ibuprofen, “the evidence does indicate that he has

obtained ‘quite a bit of improvement’ from message therapy and,

through treatment at the Center for Behavioral Medicine, has

evidenced an ability to cope with his symptoms,” i.e., by being able to

drive, cook, and participate in a five-day poker tournament that

enabled him to win $9,000.

! Medical consultants’ physical assessment. The ALJ found the opinions

and assessments of state agency medical consultants, who found Mr.

Tidwell capable of performing a limited range of light work, to be

consistent with the record as a whole. The ALJ determined that the

opinion of James McKenna, M.D. – that Mr. Tidwell is further limited

with regard to his non-exertional capabilities – was entitled to greater

weight because Dr. McKenna’s assessment was made with the benefit

of a more complete record, including evidence presented at the

hearing. 

13
! Opinions of Mr. Tidwell and Mrs. Tidwell. The ALJ found the claims of

Mr. Tidwell and his wife about Mr. Tidwell’s “level of physical

limitation, social isolation, and difficult persisting in activity” to be

excessive when compared to the medical evidence relating to his

“ongoing ability to perform activities of daily living, sustain

concentration in activities of daily living, and engage in social

interaction.”

! Past work history. The ALJ concluded that Mr. Tidwell’s past relevant

work – as an automobile customizer, maintenance repairer, and fence

erector – involved medium-to-heavy exertional levels and so exceeded

the limitations of his residual functional capacity for a limited range

of light work. 

An ALJ isn’t required to address “every piece of evidence or testimony in the

record, [but] the ALJ’s analysis must provide some glimpse into the reasoning

behind [the] decision to deny benefits.” Simms v. Astrue, 599 F. Supp. 2d 988,

997 (N.D. Ind. 2009); see also Murphy v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 811, 815 (7th Cir. 2014)

(“In reaching its decision, the ALJ must build a logical bridge from the evidence

to his conclusion, but he need not provide a complete written evaluation of every

piece of testimony and evidence.”). The court must decide whether the ALJ

provided a sufficient basis for his findings and conclusions. As already noted, the

ALJ’s report contains his review and consideration of the medical evidence relating

to Mr. Tidwell’s fibromyalgia and chronic pain conditions, see Hodges v. Astrue,

14
No. 1:09-CV-216, 2010 WL 3717256, at *9 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 14, 2010) (“[T]he

relevant inquiry is whether his pain was of a disabling severity during the relevant

period, not the diagnosis that he was assigned.”), and his conclusion that Mr.

Tidwell’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his

symptoms weren’t entirely credible. See Ellis v. Astrue, No. 2:09-CV-145, 2010 WL

3782265, at *20 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 30, 2010) (“A claimant’s statements may be

found less than credible if the level or frequency of treatment is inconsistent with

the level of complaints.”). Mr. Tidwell disagrees with the ALJ’s conclusion that the

medical evidence doesn’t support his claim of disabling pain, but the court can’t

“reweigh the evidence or substitute [its] own judgment for that of the ALJ; if

reasonable minds can differ over whether the applicant is disabled, [the court]

must uphold the decision under review.” Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306, 310

(7th Cir. 2012). The ALJ’s review of the medical evidence supports a finding that

his determination in this regard is grounded in substantial evidence in the record. 

The record confirms, and the ALJ found, that Mr. Tidwell’s fibromylgia and

chronic pain condition continue; the record shows, as the ALJ also found, that Mr.

Tidwell’s ability to cope and manage his pain continues, as well. The court can’t

say these conclusions by the ALJ were “patently wrong” and unreasonable or not

supported by the record. 

III. CONCLUSION

15
The ALJ didn’t ignore important evidence in the record. The ALJ adequately

considered Mr. Tidwell’s fibromyalgia and chronic pain when determining whether

Mr. Tidwell met or medically equaled a listing and his residual functional capacity.

Accordingly, the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is

AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: January 27, 2016 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, United States District Court

16