UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

TOMMY CORCORAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:16CV641-PPS-MGG

)

NANCY BERRYHILL,1 Acting Commissioner )

of the Social Security Administration, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Tommy Corcoran appeals the Social Security Administration’s decision to deny

his application for Social Security disability benefits. An administrative law judge

found that Corcoran was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. 

Corcoran raises only one challenge to the ALJ’s decision – that in her opinion, the ALJ

did not cite to Corcoran’s testimony at the hearing. However, I conclude that the ALJ’s

decision was supported by substantial evidence. I will, therefore, affirm the decision of

the ALJ. 

Background

At the time of the hearing, Tommy Corcoran was 50 years old. He testified that

he was married and had one minor child, a daughter who was 17. [A.R. 40.] Corcoran

1Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Nancy A. Berryhill is

substituted for her predecessor, Carolyn W. Colvin, as defendant in this suit.

1
possessed a valid driver’s license and was able to drive. [Id.] He completed two years of

college, earning an Associate’s degree in Science, Aviation Maintenance. [Id.] He has an

“A&P” (Airframe and Powerplant) license through Vincennes University. [Id. at 40-41.]

With respect to his work history dating back to 1999, Corcoran testified that he worked

for Bilby Trucking, driving a dump truck. [Id. at 42.] Next he worked for Keebler,

where he drove a semi-truck on local routes in Indianapolis and surrounding cities. [Id.

at 42-43.] When Keebler was acquired by Kellogg, Corcoran continued to work as a

semi-truck driver, doing substantially the same work. [Id. at 43.] Corcoran left Kellogg

in 2011, when it closed, and he has not worked since. [Id.] 

Corcoran reported that it is mainly his hands that keep him from working. [Id.] 

He testified that he has been in pain management for many years. The last time he

engaged in pain management was in 2012, when he was diagnosed with carpal tunnel. 

[Id. at 43-44.] He described his symptoms as numbness, tingling, and pain in both

hands. He underwent surgery on both of his hands, but he reported that it helped

“[v]ery little” and that he still has the same problems. [Id. at 44.] He continued to

experience numbness and tingling, and he stated that his hands swell up if he uses them

too much. He also stated that his hands become numb when driving. [Id.] He rated his

pain without medication as a five or six out of ten, and with medication, a two or three

out of ten. [Id. at 46-47.]

In addition to pain in his hands caused by carpal tunnel syndrome, Corcoran also

2
testified that his lower back and low blood sugars also interfered with his ability to

work. [Id. at 44.] He reported that he was a diabetic, and despite having an insulin

pump, he was still having problems with his blood sugar. [Id. at 44-45.]

Corcoran further described pain and stiffness in his both his lower and mid-back.

[Id. at 47, 58.] He rated his pain as a seven to eight out of ten without medication, and a

five to six with it. [Id. at 47.] Corcoran was referred by a surgeon to follow up with a

neurologist, but at the time of the hearing, he had not yet found or made an

appointment because his knee had been “locked up,” which delayed him. [Id. at 49.] In

addition to back pain, Corcoran testified that he has neck pain and nerve spasms on the

sides of his shoulders. [Id. at 52.]

With respect to daily activities, Corcoran reported that he could take his dog for

a short walk around the yard, but that was all he could handle. [Id. at 50.] He testified

that he could lift 20 pounds, and he could reach up into the cupboard and take down a

plate or cup, but he could hardly get dressed. [Id. at 50-51.] He is able to help bring

groceries into the house, but he does not do any laundry or cleaning. [Id. at 53.] He rides

a tractor on his property to mow the lawn in increments of about 20 minutes at a time,

but this can hurt his back. [Id. at 53-54.] In his spare time, he works on motorcycles in

his garage. [Id. at 55.]

The ALJ engaged in the five-step sequential evaluation process for determining

whether Corcoran was disabled. At Steps One and Two, the ALJ found that Corcoran

3
met the insured status requirements and that he had not engaged in substantial gainful

activity since December 1, 2012, the alleged onset date. [Id. at 20.] At Step Three, the ALJ

found that Corcoran had two severe impairments: diabetes and degenerative disc

disease of the cervical spine. [Id.] The ALJ also evaluated whether Corcoran’s carpal

tunnel syndrome and mental difficulties constituted severe impairments. She found

that Corcoran’s carpal tunnel does not constitute a severe impairment because his

symptoms had been alleviated with treatment. [Id. at 21.] With respect to his mental

difficulties, the ALJ considered the four broad functional areas set out in the disability

regulations for evaluating mental disorders. Based on this analysis, she found that his

mental difficulties were nonsevere. [Id. at 22.] At Step Four, the ALJ found that

Corcoran’s impairments were not listed impairments. [Id. at 23.]

At Step Five, the ALJ found that Corcoran has the residual functional capacity to

perform a range of light work as defined in the regulations. [Id. at 24.] In making this

determination, the ALJ stated that she considered all of the alleged symptoms. [Id.] She

expressly noted that “the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence

and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely credible for the reasons

explained in this decision.” [Id.]

In particular, the ALJ found that there were inconsistencies in regards to

Corcoran’s allegations of severe symptoms and the record as a whole. Corcoran

reported significant problems with routine tasks, but other evidence contradicted this. 

4
First, in October 2012, Corcoran reported that he had been helping his son refurbish a

vehicle. Second, as of February 2013, Corcoran was still concerned with obtaining his

commercial drivers’ license, indicating that he was still looking for work. Third, in

August 2013, during a physical therapy appointment for his wrist, he indicated that he

only had “some[what] difficulty” with dressing, bathing, feeding, and other fine motor

skills. Later, in October 2013, after his second carpal tunnel surgery, Corcoran reported

that he was using his hand for most of his work activity. In December 2013, he stated

that he was vigorously using both hands. The ALJ found it notable that his hands were

completely stained with grease and dirt. [Id. at 27.]

The ALJ also considered his medications. She found that Corcoran was less than

compliant in his treatment recommendations, and she noted that he was discharged

from his pain management clinic due to abnormal pill count and a positive urine drug

screen. She reasoned that his noncompliance with treatment recommendations

suggested that his symptoms were not as severe as alleged. [Id. at 28.]

With respect to Corcoran’s pain treatment, the ALJ observed that he had

undergone surgery on both his hands and his cervical spine. Corcoran admitted that

the bilateral carpal tunnel releases were effective. And with regard to his cervical

fusion, although he continued to complain of some pain, the imaging and clinical signs

suggested that the surgery was successful. Overall, based on a totality of the evidence,

the ALJ found that the treatment was effective in alleviating the worst of his symptoms. 

5
[Id.]

In assessing Corcoran’s alleged limitations, the ALJ noted that he complained of

significant limitations, but the record failed to support this. First, even though he had

trouble controlling his blood sugar levels, he never developed complications from

diabetes, including retaining normal vision and never experiencing neuropathy in his

extremities. Second, with respect to his neck pain, although the record confirmed this

ongoing pain, he ultimately underwent a fusion surgery. His medical records after the

surgery showed that he was neurologically intact. During routine doctor appointments,

Corcoran reported greater functional abilities and indicated that his treatment was

mostly effective in alleviating his symptoms. [Id.] 

Because the ALJ found that Corcoran retained residual functional capacity, she

concluded that he was not disabled and denied his application for benefits. Corcoran

sought review from the Appeals Council, which denied his request.

Discussion

Corcoran makes one argument, which he believes calls for a remand. I will

consider his argument, but in doing so I must keep in mind that review of the

Commissioner’s decision is limited. If an ALJ’s findings of fact are supported by

“substantial evidence,” then I must affirm the decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Overman

v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456, 462 (7th Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence consists of “such

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

6
conclusion.” Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 841 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Richardson v.

Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). In making a substantial evidence determination, I

must review the record as a whole, but I cannot re-weigh the evidence or substitute my

judgment for that of the ALJ. Id. 

Corcoran’s one issue with the ALJ’s opinion is that she only twice cited his

testimony from the hearing. He claims that failing to consider Corcoran’s testimony

means that the ALJ did not base her decision on substantial evidence because she

ignored Corcoran’s own testimony, which constituted substantial contrary evidence. 

This argument essentially challenges the ALJ’s credibility determination.

The ALJ’s credibility determinations are entitled to deference because the ALJ is

“in a special position to hear, see, and assess witnesses.” Murphy v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 811,

815 (7th Cir. 2014). I will reverse an ALJ’s credibility finding only if the claimant can

show that it was “patently wrong.” Powers v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 431, 435 (7th Cir. 2000). 

“Patently wrong,” in this context, means that the decision lacks any explanation or

support. Murphy, 759 F.3d at 816.

In this case, the ALJ adequately explained why she discredited some of

Corcoran’s allegations, and her explanation was not unreasonable. The ALJ identified

several inconsistencies between Corcoran’s testimony and application and the medical

evidence in the record. In arguing that the ALJ erred, Corcoran cites to particular

portions of his testimony, which he said support finding that Corcoran is disabled. 

7
Broadly speaking, Corcoran challenges the ALJ’s failure to take into account his

testimony regarding Corcoran’s ability to comprehend and learn, pain in his hands

caused by carpal tunnel syndrome, lower back and shoulder pain and spasms, diabetes

and low blood sugar, and inability to walk for long distances and difficulty in bending

over.

But after reviewing the ALJ’s decision, it strikes me that, even if the ALJ did not

specifically refer to Corcoran’s testimony, she carefully considered all of these

allegations as to his impairments and their frequency, intensity, and duration. Indeed,

she expressly recognized each and every one of the impairments that Corcoran

referenced in his testimony at the hearing, including his mental difficulties, carpal

tunnel syndrome, back pain, diabetes, and limitations in his daily activities. 

She then weighed the credibility of those allegations as made by Corcoran

against the objective medical evidence. As noted above, the ALJ found that, despite

Corcoran’s allegations of significant problems with routine tasks, other evidence

contradicted this. The ALJ pointed to Corcoran’s vigorous use of both hands, his

looking for work as a commercial driver as late as February 2013, and his statement

during physical therapy that he had only “some[what] difficulty” with dressing,

bathing, feeding, and other fine motor skills. [A.R. at 27.] The ALJ also noted that

Corcoran had been noncompliant with his medication and treatment, which undercut

his allegations as to the severity of his symptoms. [Id. at 28.] In addition, the ALJ

8
considered the objective medical records concerning Corcoran’s carpal tunnel

syndrome and degenerative disc disease of his cervical spine. She observed that the

imaging and clinical signs had suggested the cervical spine fusion was successful, and

Corcoran himself had admitted that the carpal tunnel syndrome surgery was effective.

[Id.] With respect to his diabetes, the ALJ looked to the objective medical evidence and

noted that Corcoran, despite having trouble controlling his blood sugar, had never had

any complications from the disease. [Id.] Finally, with regards to his neck pain, the ALJ

considered that, after his surgery, Corcoran’s medical records showed he was

neurologically intact, and Corcoran had indicated that his treatment was mostly

effective in alleviating his symptoms. [Id.]

“Although a claimant can establish the severity of his symptoms by his own

testimony, his subjective complaints need not be accepted insofar as they clash with

other, objective medical evidence in the record.” Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816, 823

(7th Cir. 2007). Although Corcoran recites excerpts from his testimony in the argument

section of his brief, he fails to identify even one piece of evidence from that testimony

that undermines the ALJ’s decision – let alone an alleged impairment that the ALJ did

not fully consider.

On the contrary, Corcoran doesn’t really even argue that the ALJ’s credibility

determination was patently wrong. Instead, he says that “it is impossible to know if the

ALJ actually considered [his] testimony as it is never truly discussed in the decision.”

9
[DE 18 at 10.] This argument is without merit. There is no requirement that the ALJ cite

to witness testimony in making her assessment. An ALJ need not provide a written

evaluation of each piece of evidence or testimony. Orlando v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 209, 213

(7th Cir. 1985). Moreover, while it’s true that the ALJ only twice explicitly referred to

Corcoran’s testimony at the hearing, it’s obvious to me that, throughout her decision,

the ALJ was in fact considering his testimony, as she referenced and carefully analyzed

the same impairments and symptoms that Corcoran offered at his testimony. 

In sum, a claimant must do more than point to a different conclusion that the ALJ

may have reached to show that the credibility determination is patently wrong. Jones v.

Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1162 (7th Cir. 2010). The ALJ reached her determination after

weighing the complete record, and I cannot reweigh the evidence anew and impose my

own judgment above that of the ALJ. Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 624 (7th Cir.

2008). In this case, I cannot say that the ALJ’s credibility determination was patently

wrong. 

Conclusion

 For all of the above reasons, the final decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security denying plaintiff Tommy Corcoran’s application for disability insurance

benefits is AFFIRMED.

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.

10
ENTERED: March 19, 2018.

 s/ Philip P. Simon 

PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11