Dr. Robinson’s opinion “little weight.” R. 15. The ALJ fully discussed the medical
evidence, R. 12-15, and concluded that Dr. Robinson’s opinion identified few objective
findings to support his opinion. R. 15. For example, testing showed that Plaintiff's finger
grasp and hand grip were unimpaired in both hands and his gross and fine manipulation of
both hands was normal. R. 12, 72, 121. Therefore, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Dr.
Robinson’s opinion finding 20% - 50% reduction in finger dexterity, gross manipulation and
fine manipulations was not supported by objective medical evidence when the objective
testing showed that he was unimpaired in these areas of functioning.
B. THE ALJ ADEQUATELY ACCOMMODATED PLAINTIFF'S OBESITY.
The ALJ fully considered and reasonably accommodated Plaintiff's obesity by
limiting him to only occasional walking and climbing, lifting only 10 pounds frequently and
20 pounds occasionally, and avoiding concentrated exposure to pulmonary irritants. The ALJ
recognized Plaintiff's obesity in her decision, R. 12, 13, and expressly stated that Plaintiff
“has decreased pulmonary functioning secondary to morbid obesity.” R. 16. Furthermore,
Plaintiff has not specified how his obesity further impairs his ability to work. Here, the ALJ
considered Plaintiff's obesity in connection with his other conditions by limiting Plaintiff to
work that did not require concentrated exposure to pulmonary irritants. The ALJ
accommodated his foot problems and obesity by restricting him to only occasional walking

and climbing.

14


hand and could only perform occasional bending, that person could still perform work as a
ticket agent, cashier, photo processor and production inspector, and could perform a reduced
number of assembler positions. R. 439. If the person were limited to sedentary’ work, that
person could still perform work as a production inspector, ticket agent, cashier, assembler,
and photo processor. R. 439.

C. MEDICAL EVIDENCE.

1. Dr. Rodney Berger - Consulting Physician.

On August 22, 1995, Claimant was examined by Dr. Rodney Berger. R. 62-9.
Claimant’s physical “examination was essentially unremarkable.” R. 67. Dr. Berger opined
that Claimant had a full capacity to sit, bend, stand and climb, with a 20% reduced capacity
to walk and stoop, and was limited to repeated lifting of up to 10 pounds. R. 65. He retained
a full capacity to perform activities of daily living, social functioning, concentration,
persistence and pace. /d.

2. Cook County Hospital - September 1, 1995 and May 1, 1996.

On September 1, 1995, Claimant sought treatment for “on and off” pain in both feet.
R.85. Anx-ray confirmed hallux valgus? deformities secondary to degenerative disease. R.
89. On May 1, 1996, Plaintiff was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome causing mild

symptoms and was prescribed Ibuprofen and the use of hand splints. R. 181.

2 Sedentary work involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally
lifting or carrying articles such as ledgers, docket files or small tools. 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a).

3 Hallux valgus is defined as a deformity of the feet caused by an osteoarthritic
degenerative condition in the joint of the big toe. American Medical Association, Complete
Medical Encyclopedia, 626 (1st ed. 2003).


claimant’s daily activities (e.g., performing his home exercise and traction program, grocery
shopping, doing laundry, driving a car, and walking one mile daily) qualified as truly
“minimal.” Id. (citing Scott v. Sullivan, 898 F.2d 519, 524 n. 6 (7th Cir. 1990) (claimant’s
testimony that he could help out around the house, carry groceries, set the table, ride a bike,
and go hunting and fishing supported ALJ’s conclusion that claimant was not limited to
sedentary work)). Plaintiff’s activities in this case are more extensive than those of the
claimant in Johansen. Moreover, as in Johansen, ALJ Dougherty adequately explained how
Plaintiff's allegation that he could not perform light work was inconsistent with the record
viewed as a whole and she did not solely rely on Plaintiff's ability to perform daily activities

in finding him not credible.

18


evidence and the result.” Sarchet v. Chater, 78 F.3d 305, 307 (7th Cir. 1996). If the
Commissioner’s decision lacks evidentiary support or adequate discussion of the issues, it
cannot stand. Steele v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936, 940 (7th Cir. 2002).

While a reviewing court must conduct a “critical review” of the evidence before
affirming the Commissioner’ decision, Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 869 (7th Cir. 2000),
it may not re-evaluate the facts, re-weigh the evidence, or substitute its own judgment for that
of the Social Security Administration. Diaz, 55 F.3d at 305-06. Thus, judicial review is
limited to determining whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards in reaching a
decision and whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings. Scivally v.
Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1070, 1075 (7th Cir. 1991). The reviewing court may enter a judgment
“affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the [Commissioner], with or without
remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

B. DISABILITY STANDARD.

Disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) are available to claimants who can establish
“disability” under the terms of Title II of the Social Security Act (“Title IT”). Brewer v.
Charter, 103 F.3d 1384, 1390 (7th Cir. 1997), Supplemental Security Income benefits
(“SSI”) are available to “disabled indigent persons” under Title XVI of the Social Security
Act (“Title XVI’). Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24 (2003). Titles Il and XVI of the
Social Security Act employ the same definition of “disability.” /d. That is, an individual is

disabled if that individual has the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by


5. Dr. Ernest C. Bone - Non-Examining State Agency Physician.

On February 7, 1996, Dr. Ernest C. Bone reviewed Plaintiff's medical records and
opined that based on Plaintiff's obesity, he was limited to occasional climbing, kneeling,
crouching and crawling. R. 133-39. He opined that Plaintiff could occasionally lift 50
pounds, frequently lift 25 pounds, stand and/or walk about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday, sit
for a total of 6 hours in an 8-hour workday, and had no limits in pushing or pulling. R. 133.
This determination represents an ability to perform medium work. See 20 C.F.R. §
416.967(c) (defining medium work as work that “involves lifting no more than 50 pounds
at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds”).

6. Dr. Kurt Robinson - Family Practitioner - Treating Physician.

On July 22, 1997, Plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Kurt Robinson, completed an
Illinois Department of Public Air Report of Incapacity. Dr. Robinson treated Plaintiff for
three years. R. 164. He found Plaintiff's respiratory exam to be normal. R. 165. Plaintiff
was able to ambulate normally, but slowly, and had decreased range of motion in his lumbar
spine. /d. Dr. Robinson opined that Plaintiff had a 20% - 50% reduction in his capacity to
perform most work-related functions and that he was limited to repeated lifting of no greater
than 10 pounds. R. 167.

7. Heel Pain and Carpal Tunnel Surgery.

On February 5, 1997, Plaintiff reported experiencing bilateral heel pain. R. 251.

Plantar fascitis was diagnosed and Plaintiff was prescribed Ibuprofen. /d. Plaintiffreturned


3. Dr. Peter Biale - Consulting Physician.

On October 2, 1995, Dr. Peter Biale examined Plaintiff and observed a full range of
motion of all joints, a normal gait and an unimpaired bilateral finger grasp and hand grip.
R.71. He had full strength in his upper and lower extremities. R. 72. He became short of
breath only upon exertion. R. 70. Dr. Biale identified the following clinical impressions: 1)
an enlarged heart; 2) diabetes mellitus for which he was taking Glucotrol; 3) bronchial
asthma precipitated only by exertion; 4) obesity; 5) bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome; 6)
painful feet; and 7) hypertension. R. 72-3. Plaintiff presented with foot problems due to a
spur in the base of the first metatarsal. R. 71.

4. Dr. Hilton Gordon - Consulting Physician.

On January 11, 1996, Dr. Hilton Gordon conducted a consulting exam at the request
of the state agency. R. 120-31. Dr. Gordon noted the following clinical impressions: 1)
carpal tunnel syndrome bilaterally; 2) non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus; 3) obesity,
4) shortness of breath on exertion; and 5) aching in both big toes, possibly secondary to bone
spurs. R. 121. Plaintiff denied polyuria (excessive urination), polydispia (excessive thirst),
neuropathy, infections or ulcers. R. 120. Plaintiff had no redness, swelling or deformity of
any joint. R. 121. There was tenderness on the bottom of both feet. /d. His fist grip and
dexterity were normal along with gross and fine manipulations of both hands. /d. He had
some reduced range of motion in his knees and ankles due to his obesity. /d. Plaintiff's gait

and spirometry report were normal. R. 121, 126.


IV. CONCLUSION
No doctor ever opined that Plaintiff was disabled or could not work. The ALJ
carefully considered the evidence before her and clearly stated her reasons for concluding
that Plaintiff was not disabled. Her conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in this opinion, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment is denied and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgmentis granted
and the ALJ’s decision dated October 25, 2000 is affirmed.

SO ORDERED THIS 4th DAY OF JANUARY, 2006.

Meta. Neen

MORTON DENLOW
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies Mailed To:

Barry A. Schultz

1609 Sherman Avenue
Suite 205

Evanston, IL 60201
Counsel for Plaintiff

Anne Lipnitz

Special Assistant U. S. Attorney
200 West Adams Street

30" Floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Counsel for Defendant

19


that he cannot lift or carry more than 20 pounds occasionally or 10 pounds frequently, walk
more than occasionally, climb, work around concentrated pulmonary irritants and perform
repetitive forceful gripping.” R. 16. Thus, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff could not
perform his past relevant work as a photographer. /d. At step five, the ALJ found Plaintiff
able to perform light work including the following available jobs: 23,500 cashier positions,
3,000 assembler positions, 1,100 photo processing positions, and 40,000 production
inspection positions. Jd. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff is not disabled and not
eligible for SSI. R. 17.
Il. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

The “findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by
substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Judicial review is limited
to determining whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards in reaching his decision
and whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings. Lopez v.
Barnhart, 336 F.3d 535, 539 (7th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence is “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Diaz v.
Chater, 55 F.3d 300, 306 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401
(1971)). A mere scintilla of evidence is not enough. Jd. Even when there is adequate
evidence in the record to support the decision, however, the findings will not be upheld if

“the reasons given by the trier of fact do not build an accurate and logical bridge between the


AL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
CHARLES W. LEWIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 01 C 9483

vs. )

) Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )
Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MEMORANDUM YEO ereeree

Plaintiff, Charles W. Lewis (“Plaintiff or Claimant”), challenges the decision of
Defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or
“Commissioner”), claiming that her denial of Plaintiff's request for Supplemental Security
Income benefits (“SSI”) should be reversed or remanded because the Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”): (1) did not give sufficient weight to the treating physician’s opinion; (2)
failed to consider Plaintiff's obesity in combination with his other impairments; (3) failed to
consider evidence of Plaintiff's urinary frequency, fatigue and arthritis; (4) failed to perform
Plaintiff's credibility determination in accordance with SSR 96-7p; and (5) failed to
separately assess Plaintiffs disability prior to his carpal tunnel syndrome release surgery for

the period February 15, 1995 to October 10, 1997,!

—

' Plaintiff's counsel withdrew this fifth argument during oral argument.


A. THE ALJ PROPERLY EXPLAINED THE REDUCED WEIGHT SHE GAVE TO
DR. ROBINSON’S OPINION.

No doctor ever opined that Plaintiff was disabled. Dr. Robinson opined that Plaintiff
had a 20-50% reduced capacity for walking, sitting, pulling, bending, turning, standing,
climbing, stooping, pushing and performing hand manipulations. R. 167. At a 50%
reduction, Dr. Robinson’s opinion is consistent with Plaintiff's ability to perform at least
sedentary work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a) (defining sedentary work as work that “involves
lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like
docket files, ledgers, and small tools”). Dr. Robinson opined that Plaintiff was limited to
lifting 10 pounds repeatedly, which is consistent with the demands of light work. See 20
C.F.R. § 416.967(b) (defining light work as work that “involves lifting no more than 20
pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds”). The
VE testified that a person who was limited to sedentary work could still perform a significant
number of jobs. R. 438. Therefore, Dr. Robinson’s opinion does not support a conclusion
that Plaintiffis disabled. On the contrary, his opinion is consistent with the ability to perform
not less than sedentary work. And as the court in Fisher v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 1055, 1057 (7th
Cir. 1989), stated, “No principle of administrative law or common sense requires us to
remand a case in quest of a perfect opinion unless there is reason to believe that the remand
might lead to a different result.”

A treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight by the ALJ if he finds it “is

well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is

12


reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected
to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A);
1382c(a)(3)(A). An individual is under a disability if he is unable to do his previous work
and cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, partake in any gainful
employment that exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A);
1382c(a)(3)(B).

To make this determination, the Commissioner must employ a five step sequential
analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)-(f); 416.920(a)-(f). If the ALJ finds at any step of this
process that a claimant is not disabled, the inquiry ends. Ismahelv. Barnhart, 212 F. Supp.
2d 865, 872 (N.D. Ill. 2002). Under this process, the ALJ must inquire: (1) whether the
claimant is still working; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the
claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) if the claimant does not suffer
from a listed impairment, whether he can perform past relevant work; and (5) whether the
claimant is capable of performing any work in the national economy.

Il, DISCUSSION

Claimant raises four issues for review: (1) whether the ALJ failed to give sufficient
weight to the opinion of Dr. Robinson, the treating physician; (2) whether the ALJ
considered Plaintiff's obesity in combination with his other impairments; (3) whether the
ALJ failed to consider evidence of Plaintiff's urinary frequency, fatigue and arthritis; and (4)

whether the ALJ’s credibility determination of Plaintiff was proper.


a month later and reported a 25% improvement in his symptoms. R. 250.

On October 10, 1997, Plaintiff underwent right carpal tunnel release surgery. R. 266-
98. Following surgery, Plaintiff was considered to be doing well and was advised to
discontinue wearing his hand splint. R. 245.

D. THE ALJ’S DECISION - OCTOBER 25, 2000.

After conducting the hearing and reviewing the evidence, the ALJ found that Claimant
was not disabled as defined in the Social Security Act. R. 9-17. The ALJ found that Plaintiff
had the residual functional capacity to perform light work reduced by certain exertional and
non-exertional limitations. R. 16.

The ALJ assessed Plaintiff's application for SSI under the five step sequential
analysis. See infra, Part I] B (describing the disability standard). Under step one, the ALJ
found that Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the relevant period.
R. 12, 16. Under the second step, the ALJ determined that Claimant had the following
medically determinable severe impairments: carpal tunnel syndrome status-post release
surgery on the right arm, obesity, hypertension, non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus and
hallux valgus deformity of the feet with some bone spurs. R. 12, 16. At step three, however,
the ALJ found that Plaintiffs severe impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment
under the Social Security regulations. /d.

At step four, the ALJ determined Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity and ability

to perform his past relevant work. The ALJ found that Plaintiff's “impairments limit him in


and he had to stretch them after sitting for half an hour to 45 minutes at a time. R. 433. He
complained of shortness of breath with exertion. R. 410.

Plaintiff described bilateral tunnel carpal syndrome, which was worse in his right arm.
R. 411. The surgery eliminated some of the pain but he still could not do some things. R.
412. He also reported not having much control of the left arm. R. 431. He could not carry
something for a long time with his hand closed. R. 413.

He claimed difficulty with sustained grip, however, he played the flute. R. 412. He
attended class twice a week and practices in between. R. 427. He complained of drowsiness
affecting his concentration, yet, he read instructional books, used a computer to access the
Internet, went to Bingo and movie nights in his building, fished, watched television, and
played pool. R. 428-35.

2. James Radke - Vocational Expert.

The Vocational Expert (“VE”), James Radke, also testified. R. 436-41. The VE was
asked to consider a person of Plaintiff’s age, education, and past relevant work experience
who could lift up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, is unlimited in his
ability to sit or stand, but could only occasionally walk, could not climb stairs or ladders, and
could not work around pulmonary irritants. R. 437-38. The VE testified that this person
could perform work as a ticket agent (3,600 jobs in the region), cashier (23,500 jobs in the
region), assembler (21,200 jobs in the region) and a photo processor (1,100 jobs in the

region). R. 438. If the person could not perform repetitive, forceful gripping with either


C. THE ALJ DID NOT FAIL TO ANALYZE SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE.

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to analyze Plaintiff's complaints of urinary
frequency, fatigue and arthritis pain. Plaintiff does not explain what further limitations he
believes he is entitled to as a result of these subjective complaints, other than those already
provided by the ALJ.

There is no evidence that Plaintiff was medically treated for urinary frequency.
Plaintiff denied urinary frequency to Dr. Gordon and emergency room personnel. R. 120,
168. Plaintiff cites only a complaint of urinary frequency to Dr. Robinson, not a diagnosis.
R. 164, 323. Moreover, Dr. Robinson did not opine that Plaintiff had any limitations due to
this complaint.

To the extent Plaintiff claims fatigue with exertion, the ALJ limited him to light work
that involved only occasional walking and climbing. Plaintiffs complaints of arthritis pain
were accommodated by a limitation to only occasional walking. Dr. Robinson opined that
Plaintiff could walk for four hours in an eight-hour workday. The ALJ did not fail to
consider this evidence.

D. THEALJ’S CREDIBILITY FINDING WAS NOT PATENTLY WRONG.

The ALJ’s credibility finding is entitled to substantial deference and will not be
disturbed unless patently wrong. Powers v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 431, 435 (7th Cir. 2000); Dixon
v Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1178-79 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Because the ALJ is in the best

position to observe witnesses, we will not disturb her credibility determinations as long as

15


Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to follow the requirements of Social Security
Ruling 96-7p in reaching her credibility determination. In assessing Plaintiff's subjective
complaints, the ALJ reasonably found that Plaintiff was not entirely credible. Consistent
with the requirements of SSR 96-7p, the ALJ reasonably contrasted Plaintiff's daily activities
with his alleged limitations. For example, the ALJ considered that Plaintiff's alleged
difficulty with sustaining grip was inconsistent with his testimony that he played flute. See
20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). The ability to play the flute was only one of many
inconsistencies the ALJ identified in assessing Plaintiffs credibility. The ALJ also
considered that Plaintiff's grip and grasp testing were normal upon examination and that he
had normal strength in his hands. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(4) (“We will consider whether
there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts
between your statements and the rest of the evidence”). The ALJ also considered other
activities which were inconsistent with Plaintiff's allegations: including the ability to use a
computer, play Bingo, fish, and ride his bike, all of which required use of his hands. The
record also showed that Plaintiff could play pool and maintain a garden. Based on the record
as a whole, the ALJ reasonably found that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not entirely
credible.

Plaintiff argues that his daily activities did not mean that he could sustain an eight-
hour, five day a week work schedule. The Seventh Circuit recently rejected a similar
argument in Johansen. 314 F.3d at 288. While the Court acknowledged that “minima!” daily

activities did not necessarily contradict a claim of disability, the Court doubted whether the


B. HEARING TESTIMONY.

1, Claimant’s Testimony.

On May 4, 2000, Plaintiff appeared with a non-attorney representative and testified
before ALJ Dougherty. Plaintiff is 5'10-1/2" tall and weighed 308 pounds at the time of the
hearing. R. 408. He is a high school graduate. Jd. He last worked as a photographer in
1987. R. 409. Plaintiff was 48 years old at the time of the hearing. R. 407. Plaintiff testified
that he was capable of a variety of daily activities. Plaintiff cooked and could use a manual
can opener. R. 420. He rode his bicycle to the grocery store twice a week, did his own
laundry, and cleaned his apartment. R. 420-21. He could push and pull a shopping cart, but
had difficulty writing for long periods of time. R. 422. Plaintiff visited his brother’s house
and also visited his niece and nephews, read, watched television, listened to the radio, went
fishing, and went to the library to use the Internet a couple of times a week. R. 423. Plaintiff
could also garden; he had a plot at a community garden near his home where he planted
tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers. R. 427-28.

Plaintiff said that at most he could walk two or three blocks. R. 421. When he had
difficulty he slowed down and stopped for a while, and tried to bend over a few times to
stretch. Jd, He reported sharp pain in his toes, which prevented him from putting weight on
his feet for more than ten minutes. R. 410. Climbing stairs caused shortness of breath. He
avoided bending because it seemed to cut off his breath. R. 422. He could write, but he

developed cramps in his hand if he held a pen or pencil too long. /d. His legs became numb


This case comes before this Court on Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, this Court denies
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grants the Commissioner’s motion for
summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY.

Plaintiff filed applications for SSI benefits on February 15, 1995, alleging a disability
as of December 31, 1992. R. 36, 38. A hearing was held by Administrative Law Judge
Michael Bernstein on October 6, 1997. R. 361-98. The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision
on February 10, 1998. R. 184-96. The Appeals Council granted a review and remanded the
matter on October 15, 1999. R. 207-09.

A second hearing was held on May 4, 2000, by Administrative Law Judge Maren
Dougherty. R. 402-42. ALJ Dougherty issued an unfavorable decision on October 25, 2000.
R. 9-17. The Appeals Council denied the request for review on January 19, 2001. R. 5-6.

Claimant filed a timely complaint with this Court seeking review of the ALJ’s
decision. On May 8, 2003, the Court remanded the claim for a new administrative hearing
because the file could not be located. In 2005, the Commissioner located the missing
administrative record and moved to reinstate the case. Claimant now seeks judicial review
of the Commissioner’s October 25, 2000 decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The
parties have consented to this Court’s jurisdiction to decide this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c)(1). The Court conducted an oral argument on November 29, 2005.


not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. §
404.1527(d)(2). When the treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the
ALJ applies the following factors in determining the weight to give the opinion: (1) length
of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) nature and extent of the
treatment relationship; (3) the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion; (4) the
consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the treating
physician; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6). Finally, the
ALJ “will always give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the
weight [he] give[s] [the] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

The ALJ can reject a treating physician’s opinion only for reasons supported by
substantial evidence in the record. Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s decision so long as a “reasonable mind
might consider the supporting evidence contained in the record to be adequate.” Ellis v.
Barnhart, 384 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1201 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (citing Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863,
869 (7th Cir. 2000)). A contrary opinion by a non-treating physician does not constitute
substantial evidence. Gudgel, 345 F.3d at 470. However, “[i]t is appropriate for an ALJ to
rely on the opinions of physicians and psychologists who are also experts in social security
disability evaluation.” Flener ex rel. Flener v. Barnhart, 361 F.3d 442, 448 (7th Cir. 2004)
(citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(f)(2)(1)).

In the instant case, the ALJ provided an adequate explanation for her decision to give


they find some support in the record.”). In order to support his determination that a
claimant’s testimony is not credible, the ALJ must explain how the allegations are
inconsistent with the medical findings in the record. Johansen v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 283,
288 (7th Cir. 2002) (summarizing Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 887 (7th Cir. 2001)).
However, an ALJ’s credibility finding will not be reversed merely because the ALJ did not
“specify which statements were incredible,” or “provide an evidentiary basis for the
credibility finding.” See Jens v. Barnhart, 347 F.3d 209, 213 (7th Cir. 2003). Where the
record provides adequate support for the ALJ’s credibility finding, the finding may be
affirmed. See id. Furthermore, when faced with evidence both supporting Plaintiffs claims
and detracting from Plaintiff’s claims, the Seventh Circuit recognizes that “the resolution of
competing arguments based on the record is for the ALJ, not the court.” Donahue v.
Barnhart, 279 F.3d 441, 444 (7th Cir. 2002).

Here, the ALJ reasonably found that Plaintiff's subjective complaints were not
credible because they were not supported by objective medical evidence and were
inconsistent with his activities of daily living, which included using a computer to go on the
Internet, grocery shopping, attending movies, playing Bingo, gardening, fishing, cooking,
doing laundry, and riding his bicycle. “These activities reflect a greater level of activity than
expected given the Claimant’s statements about pain and limitations arising therefrom.” R.
14. The ALJ gave specific reasons for her credibility finding, and her determination will be

upheld because it is not patently wrong.