IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

CYNTHIA LUDWIG, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 ) 

vs. ) 

 ) 3:13-CV-1123 

 ) 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ) 

COMMISSIONER OF THE ) 

SOCIAL SECURITY ) 

ADMINISTRATION, ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court for review of the 

Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying Disability 

Insurance Benefits to Plaintiff, Cynthia Ludwig. For the 

reasons set forth below, the decision of the Commissioner is 

REVERSED and this case is REMANDED to the Social Security 

Administration for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g). 

BACKGROUND 

On October 8, 2010, the Plaintiff, Cynthia Ludwig 

(“Ludwig”), filed an application for Disability Insurance 
2

Benefits (“DIB”). (Tr. 133-34.) Ludwig alleged that her 

disability began November 20, 2009, due to: cervical 

degenerative disc disease, degenerative joint disease, issues 

with her left sciatica, pain in her left arm/shoulder/hand/neck, 

numbness in her left arm/hand, numbness on the left side of her 

face, problems with her L4-5, an inability to sit for more than 

fifteen minutes, and lumbar degeneration. (Tr. 24, 155.) The 

Social Security Administration denied her initial application on 

February 7, 2011, and also denied her claims on reconsideration 

on April 13, 2011. (Tr. 73-76; 81-87.) Ludwig filed a written 

request for hearing on April 28, 2011. (Tr. 88-89.) On March 

12, 2012, a video hearing was held before Administrative Law 

Judge Warnecke Miller (the “ALJ”). (Tr. 37-70.) Ludwig 

appeared in Elkhart, Indiana, and the ALJ presided over the 

hearing from Fort Wayne, Indiana. (Id.) She was represented by 

counsel, Matthew D. Talbert. (Id.) In addition to Ludwig, 

Sharon D. Ringenberg, an impartial vocational expert (“VE”), 

provided testimony at the hearing. (Id.) On June 1, 2012, the 

ALJ denied Ludwig’s DIB claim, finding that she was not disabled 

because she is capable of making a successful adjustment to 

other work that exists in significant numbers in the national 

economy, despite her limitations. (Tr. 22-31.) 

Ludwig subsequently requested that the Appeals Council 

review the ALJ’s decision, and the request was denied on August 
3

21, 2013. (Tr. 1-7.) Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision became 

the Commissioner’s final decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.981. 

The claimant has initiated the instant action for judicial 

review of the Commissioner’s final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g). 

DISCUSSION 

Facts1

Ludwig was born on January 5, 1962. (Tr. 29.) She has a 

high school degree, attended college for two years, and is able 

to communicate in English. (Tr. 29.) In the past fifteen years, 

Ludwig’s relevant work included jobs as a medical records clerk 

and office manager. (Id.; 46-48.) The medical evidence can be 

summarized as follows: 

Prior to her alleged onset date of November 20, 2009, 

Ludwig went to the Coloma Clinic on February 4, 2009. (Tr. 259-

60.) Ludwig was referred from Occupational Health and saw 

Trevor Portenga, a physician’s assistant, for complaints of left 

hand/arm pain and swelling, coldness and numbness in her left 

upper extremity and face, and difficulty grasping with left hand. 

(Tr. 259.) Mr. Portenga diagnosed her with cervical spondylosis 

and degenerative disc disease resulting in left arm 

radiculopathy and prescribed Prednisone to reduce swelling. 

 

1

 The Court has borrowed liberally from the facts sections of the parties’ 

briefs, as the facts are largely undisputed. 
4

(Id.) On February 5, 2009, Ludwig underwent an MRI of her 

cervical spine. (Tr. 230.) The MRI confirmed: degenerative 

bony changes with osteophyte formation from C4-5 to C7-T1 and 

also revealed loss of disc height from C4-5 to C6-7, a diffuse 

disc bulge which mildly effaced the ventral thecal sac and 

ventral cervical cord at C4-5, a mildly diffuse disc bulge with 

small osteophyte formation resulting in effacement of ventral 

thecal sac at C5-6, a small disc osteophyte complex resulting in 

effacement of the ventral thecal sac at C6-7, and a left 

foraminal disc osteophyte complex resulting in narrowing of the 

left neural foramen at C7-T1. (Id.) The radiologist, Crystal 

Darling, M.D., diagnosed cervical spondylosis and multilevel 

degenerative disc disease. (Tr. 231.) 

On February 19, 2009, Ludwig saw her primary care provider, 

Joseph H. Cerbin, M.D. (Tr. 394.) On examination, Ludwig had a 

5/5 motor strength in all muscle groups of upper extremities, 

and the deep tendon reflexes of her upper extremities were 3+ 

and symmetric. (Id.) The range of motion of the cervical spine 

had some limitation of rotation and lateral flexion of about 25 

degrees less than normal bilaterally, but there was no 

tenderness to palpation, redness, warmth or swelling of the arms. 

(Id.) Dr. Cerbin indicated some symptoms of cervical 

radiculopathy, but he did not understand relationship between 

swelling of the hand and the other symptoms. (Id.) Dr. Cerbin 
5

prescribed Mobic, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication, 

and he suggested consultation with Kathryn L. Park, M.D., a 

specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation. (Id.) 

On March 2, 2009, Ludwig went back to see Mr. Portenga, who 

noted that her swelling had improved but that she showed some 

favoritism of the right upper arm. (Tr. 248.) Mr. Portenga 

documented that Ludwig had been having trouble sleeping at night 

because of the pain. (Id.) He told Ludwig to continue to take 

Mobic twice a day as well as Flexeril three times a day and to 

keep the appointment at the University of Michigan regarding 

cervical spine abnormalities found on the MRI. (Id.) Mr. 

Portenga wanted to speak to Dr. Swanson, a rheumatologist, 

regarding his diagnostic opinion. (Tr. 249.) On March 20, 2009, 

Ludwig again visited Mr. Portenga because her left arm was 

bothering her significantly, and she was having difficulty 

opening and closing her hand due to pain. (Tr. 247.) Ludwig 

told Mr. Portenga that any dose of Prednisone less than thirty 

milligrams did not seem to help her. (Id.) He noted that she 

was in “mild distress” and was very protective of her left arm. 

(Id.) Mr. Portenga started Ludwig on Lyrica, and, based on her 

responses to the medication, determined that he would send 

Ludwig to either a rheumatologist or an orthopedic physician. 

(Id.) 
6

On April 2, 2009, Ludwig went to see Kevin G. Drew, M.D., a 

pain specialist, for an initial consultation. (Tr. 316-18.) 

Ludwig complained of neck, bilateral shoulder, and left arm pain 

radiating down her fourth and fifth digits with some numbness 

and tingling in her first, second and third digits. (Tr. 316.) 

Ludwig also reported pain in her lower back, her bilateral lower 

extremities posteriorly down to her knees, and anteriorly in the 

knees. (Id.) Upon examination, Dr. Drew documented the 

following: 

She is sitting comfortably. She is able to transfer 

from sit to stand. She is able to ambulate. She does 

have a left hand with a fourth digit that remains in a 

flexed position at the PIP joint. This is painful for 

her to extend. She has a reduced grip strength on the 

left as compared to the right side. There is decreased 

sensation in the median distribution in digits 1, 2, 

and 3. The patient does have a very limited range of 

motion of her cervical spine and very limited range of 

motion of her lumbar spine. She complains of pain with 

any kind of resisted movements, and we did cut the 

examination short due to her persistent pain. 

(Tr. 317.) He diagnosed Ludwig with chronic persistent pain 

syndrome in her lower back, post-laminectomy syndrome involving 

the lumbosacral spine status post L4-L5 laminectomy in 1988, 

bilateral S1 radiculopathy, left C7-C8 radiculopathy, and 

hypothyroidism. (Id.) Dr. Drew prescribed Vicodin Extra 

Strength for pain control, increased her dosage of Lyrica, and 

advised her to obtain a left C7-T1 epidural injection. (Tr. 
7

317-18.) On April 3, 2009, Dr. Drew performed a left C7-T1 

cervical epidural injection. (Tr. 315.) 

On April 13, 2009, Dr. Drew reported that the MRI of 

Ludwig’s lumbar spine performed on April 6, 2009, showed 

evidence of scar tissue around the L4-L5 area and some dark 

bulging disc at L2-3, L3-4 and L4-5 with hemangiomas at L2 and 

T12. (Tr. 314.) Ludwig reported that the epidural injection 

from April 3, 2009, gave her one hundred percent relief but that 

it wore off fairly quickly. (Id.) Dr. Drew performed another 

C7-T1 cervical epidural injection with no complications. (Id.) 

On April 20, 2009, Ludwig met with Dr. Drew again and 

reported a thirty percent improvement but still had persistent 

pain that worsened with most activity and made it difficult to 

sleep. (Tr. 313.) Dr. Drew examined her and noted an antalgic 

gait, weakness, a limited range of motion and tenderness in the 

cervical spine, and limited motion in both legs. (Id.) 

Ludwig followed up with Dr. Drew on May 26, 2009, and 

reported neck pain radiating into both shoulders and arms as 

well as lower back pain radiating into her right lower extremity. 

(Tr. 312.) Dr. Drew again reported antalgic gait, weakness, 

limited motion in the lumbar spine, tenderness and limited 

motion in both legs. (Id.) 

On June 12, 2009, Ludwig went back to see Dr. Cerbin and 

reported she was having neck and neuropathic pain. (Tr. 393.) 
8

Ludwig reported that the neurosurgeons and neurologists she had 

seen in Michigan had nothing to offer her and the pain pills 

they prescribed were too expensive. (Id.) Ludwig complained of 

pain in the left shoulder and problems with her fourth finger 

and occasionally with her fifth finger. (Id.) Dr. Cerbin noted 

a markedly decreased range of motion in the shoulder with 

positive impingement signs. (Id.) Dr. Cerbin noted that Ludwig 

seemed depressed and recommended that she see a neurosurgeon, 

but Ludwig refused. (Id.) Dr. Cerbin prescribed imipramine for 

neuropathic pain and exercises for the shoulder impingement. 

(Id.) 

On July 10, 2009, Ludwig followed up with Dr. Cerbin and 

told him her pain was not as unbearable as it was, but she said 

that it had not gone away. (Tr. 392.) Dr. Cerbin stated that 

her cervical radiculopathy was not controlled and that the range 

of motion of the C-spine elicited pain, but he noted that there 

was no muscular weakness at the time. (Id.) 

On September 8, 2009, Ludwig returned to Dr. Drew and 

complained of pain as well as numbness and tingling in her left 

hand. (Tr. 311.) Ludwig reported that she had discontinued her 

medications due to the grogginess that made her unable to finish 

her daily functions. (Id.) Dr. Drew noted a normal gait, full 

motor strength in all extremities, mild pitting edema in 

Ludwig’s hand, limited motion in the lumbar and cervical spines, 
9

tenderness, and intact sensation. (Id.) Dr. Drew refilled 

Ludwig’s prescription for Vicodin and suggested she receive 

another epidural injection. (Id.) On September 15, 2009, 

Ludwig received a left C6-C7 cervical interlaminar epidural. 

(Tr. 310.) On September 28, 2009, Ludwig followed up with Dr. 

Drew. (Tr. 309.) Dr. Drew noted her ESI did not improve and 

documented antalgic gait with weakness and limited range of 

motion in the lumbar spine. (Id.) 

On October 19, 2009, Ludwig returned to see Mr. Portenga 

and acknowledged mixed success with medications and therapies 

from Dr. Drew, but she had continued complaints of left-sided 

radiculopathy with cervical disc pathology. (Tr. 245.) Ludwig 

complained of the left side of her facing feeling numb, which 

was a new complaint to Mr. Portenga. (Id.) On examination, the 

cranial nerves were intact and the rest of the neurologic exam 

was unchanged and mostly within normal limits. (Id.) 

On October 29, 2009, Ludwig met with Dr. Drew to report 

neck, shoulder, and arm pain along with numbness on the left 

side of her face. (Tr. 308.) Ludwig also reported being unsure 

if the medication was helping. (Id.) Dr. Drew determined that 

her gait, muscle strength and range of motion were all normal. 

(Id.) 

On November 19, 2009, Ludwig saw Mr. Portenga again and 

complained that her pain was “so bad that she is having a 
10

tremendous problem sleeping at night.” (Tr. 242.) Mr. Portenga 

assessed Ludwig and noted reflex sympathetic dystrophy, bladder 

fistula, overactive bladder and insomnia. (Id.) Mr. Portenga 

also reported that, “at this point, I do not know how the 

patient is functioning at work. Her gait is extremely slow and 

painful and at this point I do truly agree that maybe a shortterm disability for the next two months would be a good idea for 

her.” (Id.) 

On December 3, 2009, Dr. Drew performed another epidural 

injection in Ludwig’s cervical spine. (Tr. 306.) Dr. Drew 

noted that her first injection gave her relief but did not last 

long and that the third injection, performed in September, did 

nothing. (Id.) On December 21, 2009, Ludwig reported to Dr. 

Drew that she had no relief from the injection and complained of 

persistent pain. (Tr. 305.) Dr. Drew reported normal gait but 

noted muscle weakness as well as limited motion in the lumbar 

spine and lower extremities. (Id.) An MRI of her cervical 

spine was performed on December 23, 2009, showing multilevel 

degenerative changes with mildly increased disc height loss at 

C6-7. (Tr. 288-89.) An MRI of her lumbar spine, taken the same 

day, revealed multilevel degenerative disc disease with evidence 

of a prior laminectomy, a disc bulge, mild central canal 

stenosis and slight neuroforaminal narrowing at L4-5. (Tr. 290-

91.) 
11

On January 4, 2010, Ludwig returned to Dr. Drew and stated 

that the Percocet helped but her pain was at a level 8 out of 10 

with numbness in her left arm and hand that worsened when she 

lifted her arm. (Tr. 304.) Dr. Drew observed moderate edema in 

her hands, an antalgic gait and muscle weakness, and limited 

motion in the cervical spine, lumbar spine, both arms and both 

legs. (Id.) On February 25, 2010, Ludwig again met with Dr. 

Drew who documented a normal gait, muscle weakness, and limited 

motion and tenderness in the lumbar and cervical spines. (Tr. 

303.) On March 1, 2010, Dr. Drew administered another lumbar 

epidural steroid injection. (Tr. 302.) On March 12, 2010, 

Ludwig reported that the injection helped forty percent for one 

week and that she no longer had pain radiating down her lower 

extremity, but she still complained of pain in her lower back. 

(Tr. 301.) She also reported persistent neck pain and numbness 

in her left hand. (Id.) Dr. Drew documented an antalgic gait, 

muscle weakness, and limited motion in the lumbar spine and legs. 

(Id.) 

On March 30, 2010, because Ludwig had received four 

cervical epidural injections with little to no success, Dr. Drew 

implanted a cervical spinal cord stimulator for a trial period 

to improve Ludwig’s symptoms. (Tr. 299.) On April 6, 2010, 

Ludwig reported to Dr. Drew seventy-five percent relief in her 

left shoulder and arm after the procedure but complained of pain 
12

in her neck, left arm, lower back, and left lower extremity. 

(Tr. 298.) Dr. Drew reported edema in her left hand, muscle 

weakness, tenderness and limited motion in the cervical and 

lumbar spines. (Id.) On April 8, 2010, Dr. Drew implanted a 

spinal cord stimulator in her lumbar spine for a trial period. 

(Tr. 296-97.) 

On April 12, 2010, Ludwig met with Byung C. Rhee, M.D., a 

surgeon working at a pain clinic, to whom she had been referred. 

(Tr. 426-28.) At this appointment it was noted that Ludwig 

could stand on her heels and toes and squat and recover. (Tr. 

427.) Dr. Rhee documented that Ludwig’s lower back flexion was 

limited to sixty percent and her extension was limited to about 

fifteen degrees but that her lateral bending was full. (Id.) 

Dr. Rhee also reported that Ludwig’s neck flexion was limited to 

fifteen degrees and that she had tenderness in the midline, 

bilateral paravertebral, and bilateral anterolateral aspect of 

the neck. (Id.) Dr. Rhee’s overall impression was lower back 

pain with lumbar radiculopathy, a history of lumbar laminectomy, 

neck pain with cervical radiculopathy and cervicogenic headache. 

(Id.) Dr. Rhee recommended proceeding with permanent 

implantation of the cervical spinal cord stimulator system due 

to Ludwig’s positive reactions to it. (Tr. 427-28.) 

On April 15, 2010, Ludwig went back to Dr. Drew and stated 

she had eighty percent relief in her lower back and legs, but 
13

she still described constant pain that worsened with walking, 

standing or lifting as well as numbness and tingling in her left 

hand. (Tr. 295.) Dr. Drew noted a normal gait, normal muscle 

strength and tenderness and limited motion in the cervical and 

lumbar spine. (Id.) 

On April 26, 2010, Ludwig saw Dr. Cerbin and reported 

continued pain in both her neck and back despite having the 

epidurals. (Tr. 391.) Ludwig admitted that she did not go to 

the surgeon when her problem began. (Id.) Dr. Cerbin 

documented pain with active and passive range of motion in the 

cervical and lumbar spine and referred her to a neurosurgeon for 

examination, work-up and possible treatment. (Id.) 

On April 30, 2010, Dr. Rhee performed the implantation of 

the spinal cord stimulator electrodes and rechargeable pulse 

generator for permanent use of a cervical spine stimulator. (Tr. 

374-376.) 

On June 3, 2010, Ludwig saw Stephen M. Smith, M.D., the 

neurosurgeon she had been referred to, and stated that her 

biggest problem was her severe neck pain, along with left 

shoulder and arm pain that radiated down toward the thumb and 

index finger. (Tr. 323.) Dr. Smith noted that a cervical MRI 

and MRI of brachial plexus showed multilevel degenerative 

changes in the cervical spine, but the neural foramina was 

relatively open at all levels, with a bit of narrowing at C7-T1. 
14

(Id.) Upon examination, Dr. Smith noted that Ludwig’s motor 

strength appeared in full in the right upper extremity, that she 

could heel and toe walk, albeit with pain, and that her range of 

motion in the cervical spine was stiff with rotation to about 

thirty degrees to the left and forty degrees to the right. 

(Id.) Dr. Smith further noted that rotation did not produce 

pain down her arm with a Spurlings maneuver, that she had a good 

passive range of motion in the shoulder, and that the shoulder 

did not appear frozen and did not appear to hurt except when she 

tried to abduct her arm. (Id.) Dr. Smith acknowledged that her 

left deltoid and supraspinatus appeared to be her greatest 

weakness because she had pain and could not abduct her arm past 

thirty degrees on the left. (Tr. 324.) Dr. Smith documented 

diminished sensation in her left thumb and index finger and 

recommended that she undergo electrical diagnostic studies to 

determine whether she had brachial plexopathy or cervical 

radiculopathy. (Id.) If the test came back normal, however, he 

would rule out a diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy. (Id.) On 

June 17, 2010, and June 24, 2010, Ludwig underwent 

electromyelography and nerve conduction studies of the upper and 

lower extremities, and the results came back normal with no 

abnormalities. (Tr. 325-26.) On June 25, 2010, Dr. Rhee 

performed the permanent implantation of Ludwig’s lumbar spinal 

cord stimulator. (Tr. 414-415.) 
15

On August 20, 2010, Ludwig returned to see Dr. Cerbin who 

noted that she had numbness in her left face that he believed 

was unrelated to her spine problem due to examinations showing 

that her cranial nerves were intact, so he recommended that she 

see a neurologist. (Tr. 390.) Ludwig was using a back 

stimulator and taking Ultram at this point. (Id.) 

On December 11, 2010, Ludwig went to a consultative 

examination with Mahmoud Kassab, M.D., at the request of the 

Social Security Administration. (Tr. 429-31.) Ludwig 

complained of chronic fatigue and muscle aches as well as pain 

in her neck, back, and arms that got worse with sitting and 

standing for more than fifteen minutes. (Tr. 429.) Dr. Kassab 

documented that her grip strength in the left hand was half of 

that measured in the right hand, that she walked with mild 

antalgic gait on the left side, and that she had difficulty 

standing on her heels or toes. (Tr. 429-30.) Dr. Kassab also 

documented diminished motion in the cervical and lumbar spine. 

(Tr. 430-31.) On neurological examination, he noted that 

Ludwig’s strength was full, that there was no atrophy, that 

sensation to light touch was normal, and that deep tendon 

reflexes were symmetric and normal. (Tr. 430.) Dr. Kassab 

opined that Ludwig’s physical symptoms might stem partly from 

depression and recommended a psychiatric evaluation. (Id.) 
16

On February 1, 2011, Ludwig saw Dr. Drew for a medication 

refill and for a new onset of pain in her mid-back, as well as 

constant pain with numbness and tingling in her left hand and 

face. (Tr. 451.) Dr. Drew noted a normal gait with weakness 

and tenderness along with a limited range of motion in her 

cervical and lumbar spines. (Id.) Dr. Drew recommended 

reprogramming the spinal cord stimulator, and he refilled 

Ludwig’s medication. (Id.) On February 10, 2011, Ludwig 

returned to Dr. Drew to discuss her recent x-rays and reported 

experiencing persistent pain. (Tr. 450.) Dr. Drew documented 

an antalgic gait, muscle weakness and tenderness, and a limited 

range of motion in her lumbar spine. (Id.) Dr. Drew repeated 

the recommendation of reprogramming the spinal cord stimulator 

and told her to consider physical therapy. (Id.) 

When Ludwig returned to Dr. Drew on November 2, 2011, she 

complained of back pain radiating to her buttocks on the right 

and into her foot on the left, as well as pain extending from 

her left shoulder to her left hand. (Tr. 480.) Dr. Drew noted 

antalgic gait, muscle weakness, and tenderness and a limited 

range of motion in her lumbar spine. (Id.) He recommended a 

lumbar epidural injection and refilled her medication. (Id.) 

On November 8, 2011, Dr. Drew completed a Residual 

Functional Capacity Questionnaire stating that Ludwig was 

diagnosed with lumbar and cervical radiculopathy and 
17

degenerative disc disease. (Tr. 481-86.) Dr. Drew noted that 

Ludwig could walk less than one block, sit for fifteen minutes, 

and stand for 10-15 minutes at a time. (Tr. 483.) In an eighthour day she could stand/walk for less than two hours and sit 

for about four hours. (Tr. 484.) Dr. Drew noted that Ludwig 

would need a job that allowed her to walk around every fifteen 

minutes, shift positions at will, and take frequent unscheduled 

breaks. (Id.) Dr. Drew also stated that while Ludwig could 

rarely lift ten pounds and occasionally lift less than ten 

pounds, she could never lift twenty pounds or more. (Id.) Also, 

Dr. Drew noted that she could rarely turn her head in any 

direction or hold her head in a static position. (Tr. 484-85.) 

Dr. Drew further noted that Ludwig would have difficulty using 

her hands and could never reach overhead. (Id.) Dr. Drew 

stated that Ludwig would likely be absent more than four days 

per month due to her impairments. (Tr. 485.) 

That same day, Dr. Drew performed a right-sided S1 

transforaminal epidural injection. (Tr. 477.) Dr. Drew noted 

that Ludwig was relatively pain free in the left lower extremity 

but was having more problems in her right lower extremity. 

(Id.) 

Ludwig went to a follow up visit on November 15, 2011, and 

reported experiencing significant relief in her right buttocks 

and lower extremity but complained of lower back pain radiating 
18

into her left lower extremity as well as pain throughout her 

left upper extremity. (Tr. 476.) Dr. Drew noted moderate edema 

in the left hand, a normal gait, muscle weakness, tenderness and 

limited motion in the lumbar spine. (Id.) 

On December 29, 2011, Ludwig returned to Dr. Drew for a 

consultation and reported worsening pain which radiated down her 

left leg and into her right hip, and she indicated that the pain 

was a seven out of ten but was sometimes as severe as a nine out 

of ten. (Tr. 475.) Ludwig also reported that the Percocet was 

not working as well as before and that lately her feet had 

become severely numb. (Id.) Dr. Drew documented antalgic gait, 

muscle weakness, limited motion in the lumbar spine and both 

legs, and tenderness. (Id.) Dr. Drew increased her dosage of 

Percocet to alleviate her pain and expressed a desire to order a 

CT myelogram for further evaluation. (Id.) 

In April of 2012, Ludwig returned to Dr. Drew and said she 

could not obtain further imaging studies due to lack of medical 

insurance. (Tr. 487.) Ludwig complained of neck pain radiating 

throughout her left upper extremity as well as lower back pain 

that radiated into both hips and legs down to her ankle on the 

right side and knee on the left side. (Id.) She reported 

experiencing numbness in her left hand as well as both feet. 

(Id.) Dr. Drew observed mild edema in her left hand, limited 
19

motion in the lumbar and cervical spine, and muscle weakness. 

(Id.) He refilled her prescription for Percocet. (Id.) 

Hearing Testimony 

At the hearing on March 12, 2012, Ludwig testified that she 

last worked in November of 2009 as a clerk in the medical 

records department. (Tr. 44-46.) Ludwig testified that she 

received short-term disability payments for part of 2010. (Id.) 

She stated that she could no longer perform full-time work 

because she could not sit for long periods of time without 

shifting or standing up, that twisting and bending created pain, 

and that she spent more time lying down than in any other 

position. (Tr. 49.) Ludwig testified that the pain was on the 

left side of her neck and ran down her left shoulder to her left 

forearm. (Id.) She also stated that the first three fingers on 

her left hand were numb all the time. (Id.) Ludwig further 

testified that she had sharp, constant pain mid-way in her back 

that went down the center and into her left hip, making it feel 

like it was going to pop out of place. (Tr. 50.) Ludwig stated 

that if she attempted to do too much, she ended up in bed for 

three days with pain. (Tr. 49.) 

According to Ludwig, the cervical stimulator moved, and she 

admitted that she had not yet addressed the issue with her 

doctors; therefore, while it used to help alleviate her pain, it 
20

no longer provided relief. (Tr. 50.) She further stated that 

the lumbar stimulator helped the pain about twenty-five percent, 

and when she took Percocet she got quite a bit of relief for a 

few hours. (Id.) Ludwig said she also sometimes took Flexeril, 

a muscle relaxant, which eased the pain somewhat. (Id.) Ludwig 

testified that she did not take the Percocet every eight hours 

because she was afraid of becoming addicted and/or immune to it. 

(Tr. 50-51.) She reported that the Percocet made her “fuzzyheaded” and the Flexeril made her “quite sleepy.” (Tr. 51.) 

Ludwig testified that she and her husband lived in a onebedroom apartment, and their daughter, who was in college, was 

sometimes there on the couch. (Id.) Ludwig stated that she 

could do a little housework and light cooking, but that she 

could not unload the bottom rack of the dishwasher and needed to 

take breaks and lie down often. (Tr. 51-52.) Ludwig continued 

by stating every once in a while she went to the grocery store 

but someone else had to push the cart and carry the groceries. 

(Tr. 52.) According to Ludwig, her father visited occasionally, 

but she would have to lie in bed or sit on the couch when he 

came. (Id.) Ludwig said she did not go many places because she 

could not walk far or stand for too long and could drive no more 

than twenty to twenty-five minutes at a time. (Tr. 52-53.) 

Ludwig testified that, at her last job, she had difficulty 

lifting, putting her hands over her head to reach up and get 
21

charts, walking through the hospital, and reaching across her 

desk to answer the phone. (Tr. 54.) Ludwig testified to 

continued numbness in her left hand, her left face, and 

sometimes her two feet. (Tr. 54-55.) Ludwig said most of the 

epidural steroid injections did not work at all or worked only 

for a short period of time. (Tr. 55.) She stated she had a lot 

of pain in her hip and could not sit for very long. (Id.) At 

home, Ludwig claimed to take baths frequently and to use a 

heating pad to help ease her pain. (Id.) Ludwig stated that 

she was not able to have the myelogram because she did not have 

insurance. (Tr. 56.) As to the cervical stimulator, Ludwig 

testified that, although it moved within six months of placement, 

she was putting off any adjustment surgery due to her lack of 

insurance as well. (Id.) 

Ludwig stated that she needed her daughter or husband to 

help her get dressed or use the bathroom several times a week 

because of pain in her upper arms and hands. (Id.) She 

testified that she had trouble standing due to sharp pain in her 

hip and lower back and that her lower back hurt consistently. 

(Tr. 57.) Ludwig reported only being able to stand for fifteen 

to twenty minutes at a time. (Id.) She also stated that, when 

seated, she needed to constantly shift in her chair due to pain. 

(Tr. 58.) Ludwig testified that she did very little with her 
22

left hand and arm and noted that even applying deodorant was 

painful. (Tr. 59.) 

The VE, Sharon Ringenberg, testified that a hypothetical 

individual consistent with the ALJ’s RFC determination could not 

perform Ludwig’s past work but could potentially work as a 

cashier, furniture rental consultant, or hand folder. (Tr. 65.) 

Ms. Ringenberg opined that typical on-task requirements for such 

jobs are for eighty to eighty-five percent of the day and that 

typical absenteeism tolerance would be one to two days a month. 

(Tr. 67.) Ms. Ringenberg also testified that if the 

hypothetical individual needed to lie down for portions of the 

day, it would eliminate all of the jobs she had listed. (Id.) 

Review of the Commissioner’s Decision 

This Court has authority to review the Commissioner’s 

decision to deny social security benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

“The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any 

fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be 

conclusive . . . .” Id. Substantial evidence is defined as 

“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a decision.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 

389, 401 (1971). In determining whether substantial evidence 

exists, the Court shall examine the record in its entirety but 

shall not substitute its own opinion for the ALJ’s by 
23

reconsidering the facts or re-weighing the evidence. Jens v. 

Barnhart, 347 F.3d 209, 212 (7th Cir. 2003). With that in mind, 

however, this Court reviews the ALJ’s findings of law de novo 

and if the ALJ makes an error of law, the Court may reverse 

without regard to the volume of evidence in support of the 

factual findings. White v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 369, 373 (7th Cir. 

1999). 

 As a threshold matter, for a claimant to be eligible for 

benefits under the Social Security Act, the claimant must 

establish that she is disabled. To qualify as being disabled, 

the claimant must be unable “to engage in any substantial 

gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable 

physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in 

death or has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous 

period of not less than twelve months.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 

423(d)(1)(A) and 1382(a)(1). To determine whether a claimant 

has satisfied this statutory definition, the ALJ performs a 

five-step evaluation: 

Step 1: Is the claimant performing substantial 

gainful activity: If yes, the claim is 

disallowed; if no, the inquiry proceeds to 

step 2. 

Step 2: Is the claimant’s impairment or combination 

of impairments “severe” and expected to last 

at least twelve months? If not, the claim is 

disallowed; if yes, the inquiry proceeds to 

step 3. 

Step 3: Does the claimant have an impairment or 
24

combination of impairments that meets or 

equals the severity of an impairment in the 

SSA’s Listing of Impairments, as described 

in 20 C.F.R. § 404 Subpt. P, App. 1? If yes, 

then claimant is automatically disabled; if 

not, then the inquiry proceeds to step 4. 

Step 4: Is the claimant able to perform his past 

relevant work? If yes, the claim is denied; 

if no, the inquiry proceeds to step 5, where 

the burden of proof shifts to the 

Commissioner. 

Step 5: Is the claimant able to perform any other 

work within his residual functional capacity 

in the national economy: If yes, the claim 

is denied; if no, the claimant is disabled. 

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v) and 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v); see 

also Herron v. Shalala, 19 F.3d 329, 333 n. 8 (7th Cir. 1994). 

 In this case, the ALJ found that Ludwig met the insured 

status requirements of the Social Security Act through March 31, 

2014, had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since 

November 20, 2009, and suffered from the following severe 

impairments: cervical degenerative disc disease and degenerative 

joint disease. (Tr. 24.) The ALJ further found that Ludwig did 

not meet or medically equal any of the listed impairments. (Tr. 

25.) The ALJ determined that Ludwig retained the Residual 

Functional Capacity (“RFC”) to perform a reduced range of light 

work. (Tr. 26-29.) More specifically, the ALJ found that: 

[Ludwig] has the residual functional capacity to 

perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b) 

except that [she] is limited to occasional 

pushing/pulling with the left upper extremity; 

occasionally climbing of ramps/stairs; occasional 

balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and/or 
25

crawling; [she] can never climb ladders, ropes, or 

scaffolds; [she] must avoid hazards such as moving 

machinery, unprotected heights, and slippery/uneven 

surfaces; and she must alternate between sitting and 

standing approximately every 30 minutes, but the 

positional change will not render [her] off task. 

(Tr. 26.) With this RFC, the ALJ determined that Ludwig was 

unable to perform any of her past relevant work but that, given 

her vocational profile and RFC, she could perform other jobs 

that existed in significant numbers in the national economy such 

as the work of a cashier, a furniture rental consultant, or a 

hand folder. (Tr. 29-30.) Thus, Ludwig’s claim failed at both 

steps four and five of the evaluation process. 

 Ludwig believes that reversal is required because the ALJ 

committed several errors. Specifically, Ludwig argues that the 

ALJ erred by: (1) failing to properly evaluate the opinion of Dr. 

Drew, her treating pain specialist; (2) failing to adequately 

consider and address the “other source” opinion evidence of 

record; and (3) improperly evaluating Ludwig’s credibility. 

Each argument will be addressed in turn. 

The ALJ’s Consideration of Dr. Drew’s Opinion 

 Ludwig argues that the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Drew’s 

opinion is entitled to little weight is not supported by 

substantial evidence. A treating physician’s medical opinion 

must be given controlling weight if it is “well supported” and 
26

not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 

(7th Cir. 2011). An ALJ must offer “good reasons” for 

discounting the opinion of a treating physician. Martinez v. 

Astrue, 630 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010); Campbell v. Astrue,

627 F3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, SSR 96-2p 

requires that the ALJ’s “decision must contain specific reasons 

for the weight given to the treating source’s medical opinion, 

supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be 

sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers 

the weight and adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical 

opinion and the reasons for that weight.” SSR 96-2p. 

 If the treating physician’s opinion is not well supported 

or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, the ALJ must 

apply the following factors to determine the proper weight to 

give the opinion: 

(1) the length of the treatment relationship and 

frequency of examination; 

(2) the nature and extent of the treatment 

relationship; 

(3) how much supporting evidence is provided; 

(4) the consistency between the opinion and the record 

as a whole; 

(5) whether the treating physician is a specialist; 

(6) any other factors brought to the attention of the 

Commissioner. 
27

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)-(d) and 416.927(a)-(d); see Moss v. 

Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009); Bauer v. Astrue, 532 

F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2008). It is reversible error for an ALJ 

to discount the medical opinion of a treating physician without 

applying this legal standard and for further failing to support 

the decision with substantial evidence. Moss, 555 F.3d at 561; 

Punzio, 630 F.3d at 710. 

 In the present case, as related to the November 2011 medical 

source statement from Dr. Drew, the ALJ opined: 

The undersigned gives little weight to Dr. Drew’s 

opinion because it is inconsistent with his own 

treatment evidence and it is without substantial support 

from the other evidence of record, which renders it less 

persuasive. She was relatively pain-free in the left 

lower extremity with a negative straight leg raise, no 

edema, and sensation was intact. The evidence does 

demonstrate an antalgic gait at times and range of 

motion limitations in the spine and lower extremities. 

The claimant achieved good pain relief with spinal court 

stimulators and injections. In addition, the claimant 

testified to difficulty sitting. As such, the 

undersigned included a sit/stand option in the residual 

functional capacity. However, the evidence does not 

support an ability to lift more than 10 pounds, as the 

claimant had full range of motion un the upper 

extremities and she was able to use her hands without 

problems. She performs household chores, cooks, shops, 

drives, and walks the dogs, which is inconsistent with 

the functional limitations given by Dr. Drew. 

Diagnostic imaging does not support such severe 

limitations either. She is limited to occasional 

pushing and pullin on the left because of numbness and 

tingling noted in the left hand. Dr. Drew indicates 

that depression and anxiety contribute to the severity 

of the claimant’s physical condition, but during 

examinations, no mental problems were noted. She was 

alert and oriented with no aberrant behaviors, and her 
28

memory was intact. 

(Tr. 28) (internal citations omitted). The Court finds that the 

ALJ’s explanation for giving Dr. Drew’s opinion “little weight” is 

insufficient. First, the ALJ did not offer an adequate 

explanation or specific reasons as to why Dr. Drew’s opinion is 

“inconsistent with his own treatment evidence.” Throughout the 

year and a half of treating Ludwig, Dr. Drew noted that Ludwig had 

severe though fluctuating pain and observed an antalgic gait on 

eight separate occasions. Dr. Drew also noted Ludwig had muscle 

weakness on fourteen separate occasions. Although the ALJ stated 

that Ludwig was “relatively pain-free in the left lower extremity” 

and that she achieved “good pain relief with spinal cord 

stimulators and injections,” this ignored evidence from Dr. Drew’s 

own treatment notes that such relief was temporary and incomplete. 

In February of 2011, after the spinal cord stimulators were 

implanted, Dr. Drew noted that Ludwig was experiencing persistent 

pain and had an antalgic gait, muscle weakness, and a limited 

range of motion in her lumbar spine. He recommended reprogramming 

the spinal cord stimulator. In November of 2011, Dr. Drew noted 

Ludwig had back pain as well as pain extending from her left 

shoulder to her left hand. The ALJ did not adequately define any 

inconsistencies related to this evidence. See Scott v. Astrue, 

647 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2011) (an ALJ is not permitted to 

“cherry-pick” evidence from the record to support a denial of 
29

benefits). 

 Similarly, while the ALJ stated that Ludwig’s performance of 

household chores, cooking, shopping, driving, and walking her dogs 

are activities that are inconsistent with Dr. Drew’s functional 

limitations, she did not explain why. Ludwig testified that she 

did “a little bit” of housework but that she didn’t do laundry too 

often or unload the bottom rack of the dishwasher because she 

could not bend over. She also testified that she could cook a 

light meal a few times a week but that she needed to lie down in 

between her chores. Ludwig stated that she needed someone to push 

the cart and help her carry the groceries in when she was able to 

go to the grocery store once in a while, and she also stated that 

she was only able to drive for twenty to twenty-five minutes at a 

time. Ludwig clearly testified that she no longer had any dogs 

but that when she did previously, she was not able to care for 

them without help. Ludwig noted that she would “try to walk them 

a little bit” but could never do so for very far. The ALJ 

seemingly mischaracterized Ludwig’s testimony when using it to 

discount Dr. Drew’s opinion, and it is unclear to the Court why 

this evidence conflicts with the functional limitations given by 

Dr. Drew. The ALJ’s failure to shed light upon this issue 

constitutes error. See Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 870 (7th 

Cir. 2000) (failure to provide an explanation for why a claimant’s 

activities are inconsistent with a treating physician’s opinion is 
30

error); see also Hughes v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 276, 278 (7th Cir. 

2013) (the ability to remain flexible and engage others in help 

related to household chores and limited activities of daily 

living is critically different than the requirements of a fulltime job)). 

 To the extent the ALJ determined that Dr. Drew’s opinion 

was entitled to little weight because it was “without 

substantial support from the other evidence of record,” she 

again failed to offer an adequate explanation or specific reasons 

for that determination. For example, while the ALJ cited 

generally to Dr. Rhee and Dr. Kassab’s medical records to 

determine that the evidence did not support an ability to lift no 

more than ten pounds because Ludwig “had full range of motion in 

the upper extremities and she was able to use her hands without 

problems,” the ALJ failed to acknowledge or explain evidence in 

the record to the contrary. Dr. Smith noted that Ludwig had pain 

in her left deltoid and supraspinatus and could not abduct her arm 

past thirty degrees. He also documented diminished sensation in 

her left thumb and index finger. Dr. Kassab himself also 

documented diminished grip strength in Ludwig’s left hand. 

Because the ALJ did not expand upon her conclusions, it is unclear 

why she chose to discount this evidence (which seems to support 

Dr. Drew’s findings) and rely on other unfavorable evidence 

instead. The ALJ’s cursory statement that Dr. Drew’s limitation 
31

on lifting is not supported by the record, without more, is 

insufficient to create the sort of logical bridge between the 

evidence she relied upon and her conclusion that is required. See 

Clifford, 227 F.3d at 872 (an ALJ must “build an accurate and 

logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion”). Similarly, 

the ALJ faults Dr. Drew for indicating that depression and anxiety 

could have contributed to Ludwig’s physical conditions because 

“during examinations, no mental problems were noted.” However, 

Dr. Cerbin noted that Ludwig seemed depressed, and Dr. Kassab 

opined that Ludwig’s physical symptoms might stem, in part, from 

depression. In fact, Dr. Kassab went so far as to recommend that 

a psychiatric evaluation be performed. The ALJ did not address 

these observations, which are consistent with those of Dr. Drew, 

and does not elaborate as to why she failed to do so. See Id. 

 Furthermore, while the ALJ cites generally to the records of 

Dr. Smith, Dr. Rhee, and Dr. Kassab to conclude that Ludwig was 

relatively pain-free in the lower left extremity with a negative 

straight leg raise, no edema, and intact sensation, she does not 

explain why this evidence, when viewed as part of the record as a 

whole, renders Dr. Drew’s opinion substantially unsupported. Dr. 

Cerbin documented that Ludwig had limited range of motion in her 

cervical spine, decreased range of motion in her shoulder, and 

cervical radiculopathy that was not controlled. Dr. Smith 

documented multilevel degenerative changes in the cervical spine, 
32

painful heel walking, and limited range of motion in her cervical 

spine. Dr. Rhee documented limited range of motion in Ludwig’s 

neck and back. Dr. Kassab documented that Ludwig had an antalgic 

gait, difficulty standing on her heels or toes, and diminished 

motion of the cervical and lumbar spine. The Court agrees with 

Ludwig that, while the evaluations by the other providers may not 

have exactly matched the opinions of Dr. Drew, the ALJ did not 

adequately explain why Dr. Drew’s opinions were without 

substantial support. The ALJ’s conclusions, without further 

explanation, are simply too vague to allow for meaningful 

appellate review given the record before this Court which is rife 

with evidence that is consistent with Dr. Drew’s opinions. See 

Id.; see also Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 425 (7th Cir. 2010) 

(an ALJ cannot simply cherry-pick facts from a doctor’s findings 

to support his decision to discount a treating physician’s 

opinion, while ignoring evidence that points to a disability 

finding). 

 Finally, even if Dr. Drew’s opinion was inconsistent with his 

own treatment records or not well supported by other substantial 

evidence, the ALJ did not consider all of the factors set forth in 

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)-(d) and 416.927(a)–(d) in determining the 

proper weight to give to his opinion. Specifically, the ALJ did 

not discuss the length of treatment, frequency of examination, or 

the nature and extent of the treatment relationship between Ludwig 
33

and Dr. Drew. Dr. Drew had been examining Ludwig regularly from 

April of 2009 through November of 2011, long enough to create an 

extensive doctor/patient relationship. As explained by the 

Seventh Circuit, failure to address these factors constitutes 

reversible error. Moss, 555 F.3d at 561; Punzio, 630 F.3d at 710. 

Given the narrow range of work that the ALJ found that Ludwig 

could perform, it is reasonably likely that any further 

limitations in her ability to lift, reach, sit and stand could 

have further eroded the occupational base to such an extent that 

she would be deemed disabled within the meaning of the Social 

Security Act. Thus, this case must be remanded so the treating 

physician’s opinions may be properly addressed. 

The ALJ’s Credibility Assessment 

 Ludwig also argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate 

the credibility of her allegations. Because the ALJ is best 

positioned to judge a claimant’s truthfulness, this Court will 

overturn an ALJ’s credibility determination only if it is 

patently wrong. Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500, 504 (7th 

Cir. 2004). However, when a claimant produces medical evidence 

of an underlying impairment, the ALJ may not ignore subjective 

complaints solely because they are unsupported by objective 

evidence. Schmidt v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 737, 745-47 (7th Cir. 

2005); Indoranto v. Barnhart, 374 F.3d 470, 474 (7th Cir. 2004) 
34

(citing Clifford, 227 F.3d at 872). Instead, the ALJ must make 

a credibility determination that is supported by record evidence 

and is sufficiently specific to make clear to the claimant and 

to any subsequent reviewers the weight given to the claimant’s 

statements and the reasons for that weight. Lopez v. Barnhart, 

336 F.3d 535, 539-40 (7th Cir. 2003)(emphasis added). 

 In evaluating the credibility of statements supporting a 

Social Security application, an ALJ must comply with the 

requirements of Social Security Ruling 96-7p. Steele v. 

Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir. 2002). This ruling 

requires that ALJs articulate “specific reasons” behind 

credibility evaluations; the ALJ cannot merely state that “the 

individual’s allegations have been considered” or that “the 

allegations are (or are not) credible.” SSR 96-7p. 

Furthermore, the ALJ must consider specific factors when 

assessing the credibility of an individual’s statement 

including: 

 1. The individual’s daily activities; 

 2. The location, duration, frequency and 

intensity of the individual’s pain or other 

symptoms; 

 3. Factors that precipitate and aggravate the 

symptoms; 

 4. The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side 

effect of any medications the individual 

takes or has taken to alleviate pain or 

other symptoms; 
35

 5. Treatment, other than medication, the 

individual receives or has received for 

relief of pain or other symptoms; 

 6. Any measures other than treatment the 

individual uses or has used to relieve pain 

or other symptoms; and 

 7. Any other factors concerning the 

individual’s functional limitations and 

restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 

SSR 96-7p; see also Golembiewski v. Barnhart, 322 F.3d 912, 915-

16 (7th Cir. 2003). 

 Here, the ALJ discounted Ludwig’s allegations by stating: 

At the hearing, the claimant alleged that her cervical 

spine stimulator “moved” six months after implantation 

and essentially “stopped working” 1 1⁄2 years ago, but 

she has not returned to the doctor to address this 

issue for a year and a half, which is inconsistent 

with her allegations of debilitating pain. She is 

apparently able to successfully use hot baths, heat 

pads, and neck massagers as pain remedies. In 

addition, the claimant continued to smoke against her 

doctor’s advice, which interferes with healing. 

(Tr. 27.) The record is clear though, that Ludwig continued to 

visit Dr. Drew for treatment of her severe pain throughout the 

adjudicative period, a fact the ALJ did not acknowledge. While 

there is no evidence that Ludwig specifically mentioned her 

suspicions of movement to any doctor, she did testify that she 

was not able to have her cervical stimulator surgically adjusted 

because of a lack of medical insurance; the ALJ made no mention 

of Ludwig’s insurance difficulties. The ALJ did, however, point 

to Ludwig’s declaration of “successfully” using at home remedies 
36

of hot baths, heat pads, and neck massagers for pain relief as 

being inconsistent with her statements concerning the intensity, 

persistence, and limiting effects of her pain. Not only did the 

ALJ mischaracterize Ludwig’s testimony by using the word 

“successfully” in relation to her alleged pain relief, but she 

also did not adequately explain why Ludwig’s use of at home 

remedies, in addition to the treatments prescribed by her 

physicians, would render her allegations of pain incredible. See 

Clifford, 227 F.3d at 872 (an ALJ must “build an accurate and 

logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion”); see also 

Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d at 739 (“There can be a great distance 

between a patient who responds to treatment and one who is able to 

enter the workforce.”). 

 Furthermore, as explained in more detail in the previous 

section, while the ALJ did discuss Ludwig’s individual daily 

living activities, she cherry picked from the details, leaving 

out important factors related to Ludwig’s ability to perform 

these daily tasks; she did the same with regard to the 

effectiveness and duration of Ludwig’s various pain relief and 

surgical procedures. This was improper, and remand is required. 

See Scott, 647 F.3d at 740 (an ALJ may not “cherry pick” from 

mixed results in order to support a denial of benefits). 
37

The ALJ’s Consideration of “Other Source” Evidence 

 In light of the ALJ’s other errors described above, the Court 

finds no compelling reason to explore this argument. On remand, 

in addition properly considering evidence related to Dr. Drew’s 

opinions and Ludwig’s credibility, the ALJ will also need to 

consider all relevant “other source” opinion evidence of record. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set forth above, the Commissioner of Social 

Security’s final decision is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED 

for proceedings consistent with this opinion pursuant to 

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

DATED: March 26, 2015 /s/ Rudy Lozano, Judge 

 United States District Court