affirmed in June 1999. A 1999 exercise stress test revealed normal results. A 1999 cardiac report
indicated that Ekdahl had atypical (non-cardiac) chest pain and that no restrictions had been placed
on his physical activity.

In a November 1999 letter addressed to Ekdahl’s lawyer, Dr. Kenneth Margules, a
rheumatologist, indicated that he had first seen Ekdahl in September 1999, when Ekdahl complained
of multiple aches and pains in various joints. According to Margules, Ekdahl suffers from asbestosis
injuries in both lungs and suffers from a decline in his pulmonary function. Margules made the
following diagnoses: (1) post-traumatic arthritis of the left shoulder; (2) post-traumatic stress of the
right shoulder; (3) osteoarthritis of the right hip; (4) post-traumatic arthritis of the back; (5) post-
traumatic arthritis of both ankles; (6) diabetes mellitus, untreated; and (7) fibromyalgia. Margules
indicated that he would be surprised if Ekdahl were to ever work again given the extent of his
arthritis in his shoulders, hip and ankles.

In a fibromyalgia questionnaire, Margules indicated that Ekdahl met the “American
Rheumatological criteria” for fibromyalgia. Ekdahl had pain and several fibromyalgia-related
symptoms. The pain would interfere with Ekdahl’s attention and concentration. Ekdahl tired easily,
needed to lie down and was incapable of performing even low-stress jobs. Margules further opined
that Ekdah] could walk only one city block without pain, sit for twenty minutes at a time, stand for
twenty minutes at a time, occasionally lift up to ten pounds and that he would need unscheduled
breaks.

In December 2000, Dr. Charles O’Laughlin, an orthopedic surgeon, examined Ekdahl. In
a letter to the Illinois Department of Human Resources, O’ Laughlin stated that Ekdahl was capable

of medium-demand physical work, but that Ekdahl would have difficulty with direct overhead

4.



of jobs — electrician, electrical repairer, electrical assembler and electrical sales associate. The ALJ
then presented to Mendrick a hypothetical person whose limitations matched those of Ekdahl that
were supported by the medical evidence. The ALJ asked Mendrick: “Would these limitations
restrict the number of jobs which you’ve previously identified?” Mendrick responded: “From the
list of jobs I gave you last time, this person could do the sales work. And this person would also be
able to do the assembly work, but not the other two jobs, Judge.” (R. 50.)

In his written decision, the ALJ found that Ekdahl “is able to perform a significant number
of light occupations existing throughout the region and throughout the state wherein [Ekdahl]
resides.” (R. 31.) The ALJ then listed as examples of light work occupations the four categories of
jobs to which Ekdahl’s skills were transferable rather than the two categories of jobs that Mendrick
stated a hypothetical person with certain limitations could perform. Ekdahl claims that this resulted
in an overcounting of available jobs (14,400 jobs vs. 9,800 jobs).

We do not agree that the ALJ’s finding was based solely on the availability of 14,400 jobs.
The record indicates that, in reaching his decision, the ALJ considered all of the evidence. He
considered Mendrick’s testimony, stating that Ekdahl “is able to perform the jobs enumerated by the
vocational witness,” and consulted SSA regulations such as 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2. (R.
26, 30, 31.) Even if the ALJ relied solely on Mendrick’s testimony to support his conclusion, the
two categories of jobs mentioned by Mendrick as available to the hypothetical person with certain
limitations (sales associate and assembler) would result in 9,800 available jobs — enough to satisfy
the “substantial evidence” standard. See Lee v. Sullivan, 988 F.2d 789, 794 (7th Cir. 1993) (1,400

jobs is significant number of jobs).

-9-



the work was skilled work and that the exertion level fell between medium and heavy. The skills
associated with the profession include a thorough knowledge of the theory of electricity, including
the ability to identify materials appropriate for different situations and knowledge of practices and
procedures required for proper construction, assembly and safety. Mendrick testified that these skills
are transferable to the following light work jobs in the Chicago metropolitan area: 2,600 electrician
jobs, 2,000 electrical repair jobs, 7,800 electrical assembly jobs and 2,000 electrical sales jobs.
When asked by the ALJ about job opportunities for a hypothetical individual who could stand for
six hours in an eight-hour workday, lift twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently, stoop
and bend only frequently, squat, climb and crawl only occasionally and cannot reach above shoulder
level with either arm, Mendrick revised the number of available of jobs downward — only the sales

work (2,000 jobs) and assembly work (7,800 jobs) could be performed by this hypothetical person.

The ALJ’s Decision

In a decision dated August 13, 2001, ALJ Alan Jonas determined that, for the purposes of
disability benefits, Ekdahl was not disabled. The ALJ found that Ekdahl has diabetes mellitus; can
occasionally lift and/or carry twenty pounds and can frequently lift and/or carry ten pounds; can sit
six hours out of an eight-hour workday; can stand and/or walk six hours out of an eight-hour
workday; can frequently stoop and bend; and can occasionally squat, crawl and climb stairs and
ramps. The ALJ found, however, that Ekdah! cannot reach above shoulder level. Given Ekdahl’s
vocational profile and residual functional capacity, the ALJ concluded that Ekdahl cannot perform
any of his past relevant work. (R. 25). But the ALJ determined that Ekdahl had acquired skills from

his past work that are transferable to the following light work jobs: electrician (2,600 jobs),

-6-



activities due to loss of motion.' O’Laughlin imposed lifting restrictions, stating that Ekdahl could
lift twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently.”

At the hearing, Dr. Sheldon Slodki testified as a medical expert. Slodki noted that although
Ekdahl had various medical complaints, none of the test results regarding the complaints indicated
that Ekdahl met any of the Social Security Administration’s (the “§SA”) listing of impairments,
Slodki opined that the weight requirements for medium work would be difficult for Ekdahl given

his shoulder complaints, but that Ekdahl could easily do light work.

Ekdahl’s Hearing Testimony

At the hearing, Ekdahl testified that he felt his diabetes was his most significant health
problem, although he does not take any medication for the condition as he is trying to control it
through diet. He experiences chest pain between two and three times a week, which is relieved by
sitting or otherwise taking it easy. Ekdahl testified that he could walk about a block and a half before
needing to rest, and that he takes no medication for his breathing problems. He experiences “strong
discomfort” when raising his left shoulder above shoulder height, and experiences greater discomfort

when he does the same with his right shoulder. Ekdahl also testified that he fatigues easily.

Vocational Expert Mendrick’s Hearing Testimony

Vocational expert Frank Mendrick testified that Ekdahl was a journeyman electrician, that

1 Laughlin noted in his letter that Ekdahl had “excellent strength and no evidence of anything really severe
going on which would prevent him” from doing activities at the shoulder level and below. (R. 480.)

2 ‘These lifting restrictions correspond to “light work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b).

-5-



the SSA to establish that the claimant is capable of performing other work in the economy. See
Knight, 55 F.3d at 313. The ALJ found that Ekdahl satisfied step four and thus the burden shifted
to the Commissioner to show that Ekdahl can perform a significant number of other jobs existing
in the regional economy consistent with his impairments, functional limitations, age, education and
past work experience. (R. 26.) The ALJ found that the Commissioner met her burden. The issue
before us is whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding.

Ekdahl asserts that the ALJ’s decision is erroneous. Specifically, he claims that (1) the ALJ
miscounted the total number of available jobs; (2) the ALJ mistakenly assumed that Ekdahl can
perform sales associate jobs; and (3) the ALJ mistakenly included assembly jobs in the list of
availablejobs.> We disagree, finding that taken as a whole, the evidence supports the ALJ’s ultimate
finding that Ekdahl is not disabled because there are a significant number of jobs in the regional
economy which he can perform. See Perkins v. Chater, 107 F.3d 1290, 1296 (7th Cir. 1997) (when
applying deferential standard to ALJ decision, evidence is considered in its entirety). We address

Ekdahl’s points seriatim.

Number of Available Jobs

During the hearing, Mendrick stated that Ekdahl’s skills were transferable to four categories

5 Ekdahl initially argued that it was error for the ALJ to discount the medical opinion of Ekdahl’s treating
physician, Dr. Margules. Ekdahl seems to abandon this argument, however, in his reply brief. (Pl.'s Reply at 7.) We
note that an ALJ is not obligated to give controlling weight to the evidence of a treating physician when the evidence
is not well-supported by medical findings and is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See Dixon,
270 F.3d at 1177. Here, the ALJ found that Margules’s diagnosis of fibromyalgia was not properly documented and that
many of the diagnoses “submitted by Dr. Margules are not documented by any complaints, or any medical treatment”
since the disability onset date. (R. 22.) In addition, the ALJ found that the objective medical evidence does not support
the finding that Ekdahl experiences “any totally debilitating pain and/or any other totally debilitating symptomatology,
such that the claimant cannot perform light work.” (R. 26.)

8.



Minute Order fora (06/97)

WSN do United States District Court, Northern District of Hlinois

Name of Assigned Jud Sleting Judge if Oth
rar Mopstrate Judge Paul E, Plunkett than Atsigued Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 8603 DATE 10/29/2003
CASE Raymond Ekdahl vs. Joanne B. Barnhart
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oO Brief in support of motion due
(€)) o Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due .
(4) o Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) o Status hearing{held/continued to) [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at .
() ia Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) © — [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) im} This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) (Local Rule 41.1 CIFRCP41(a)\(1) O FRCP41(a\(2).
ao (Other docket entry) . ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff Ekdahl’s
motion for summary judgment is denied and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment is
granted. This is a final and appealable order.
(i) (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required.
Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.
oS | Docketing to mail notices.

,
VY | Mail AO 450 form. 48n09 1 }
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. ‘
O2in iy p> ya
“Hid 62 1900
courtroom
jeputy’ Che ; ——
me inne Sidieidue Yi Gp
Dardtithb deceived in
central Clerk's Office



Smith v. Apfel, 231 F.3d 433, 439 (7th Cir. 2000) (lack of medical evidence to support claimant’s
complaint can bear on claimant’s credibility). The evidence, including the opinions of O’Laughlin
and Slodki, support the ALJ’s finding that Ekdahl can perform light work. The hypothetical the ALJ
posed to Mendrick was proper and the ALJ’s conclusions regarding Ekdahl’s ability to perform sales

associate jobs are supported by substantial evidence.

Assembly Jobs

Ekdahl argues that the electrical assembly jobs referred to by Mendrick are actually unskilled
jobs which do not require knowledge of electricity, the ability to identify appropriate materials or
knowledge of safety practice and procedure. Thus, argues Ekdahl, these 7,800 jobs should not be
counted among the jobs available to him. We disagree.

Because of Ekdahi’s age, the Commissioner must demonstrate that the significant number
of jobs in the regional economy capable of being performed by Ekdahl are either skilled or semi-
skilled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(d)(4). According to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, the job
of electrical assembler has a Specific Vocational Preparation’ (“SVP”) level of 3, meaning that it
would take over one month and up to and including three months to learn the job. This puts the job
of electrical assembler in the category of semi-skilled work. See Social Security Rule 00-4p
(effective 12/4/00) (stating that “unskilled work corresponds to an SVP of 1-2; semi-skilled work
corresponds to an SVP of 3-4; and skilled work corresponds to an SVP of 5-9”). Semi-skilled work

is appropriate to include among the categories of work to which Ekdahl’s skills are transferable. See

® ‘The SVP indicates the amount of lapsed time required by a typical worker to develop the facility needed for
average performance in a particular job.

-ll-


Sales Associate Jobs

Ekdahl claims that his fitness for electrical sales associate jobs is not supported by the
evidence. He first argues that these jobs cannot accommodate someone with his lifting and overhead
work limitations. Mendrick testified that there are approximately 5,400 electrical sales associate
jobs, but that he reduced the number of available jobs to 2,000 to account for Ekdahl’s limitations.
(R. 58.) Mendrick stated that some companies specialize in electrical equipment that is small and
light and where the inventory is kept at shoulder level. Given this testimony, we find that it was
reasonable for the ALJ to conclude that 2,000 sales associate jobs are available to Ekdahl. See
Ehrhart v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 969 F.2d 534, 540-41 (7th Cir. 1992) (use of
vocational expert and weight due expert’s testimony within discretion of ALJ).

Ekdahl then argues that sales associate jobs are not available to him because of his diabetes-
related foot problems, his osteoarthritis of the right hip and his arthritis in both ankles. Ekdahl
claims that the ALJ ignored these complaints and should have included them in the hypothetical he
gave to Mendrick.

When posing a hypothetical question to a vocational expert, an ALJ need only include
impairments the ALJ finds are supported by evidence in the record. Jd. at 540. The ALJ here noted
that Ekdahl has not sought medical treatment for arthritis in his right hip or for arthritis in his ankles
since the alleged disability onset date, June 8, 1998. (R. 22.) He also found that Ekdahl has no
residual impairment from diabetes mellitus. (R. 29, 30.) The ALJ properly found that Ekdahl’s
subjective complaints were not supported by the objective medical evidence, the evidence from the
consulted examiners or Ekdahl’s own testimony about his daily activities. See Knight, 55 F.3d at

314 (subjective complaints may be discounted if inconsistent with evidence as a whole). See also

-10-



electronic repair person (2,000 jobs), electronic assembler (7,800 jobs) and sales associate in the
electric department of a retail store (2,000 jobs). Because Ekdahl can perform a significant number
of jobs in the regional economy consistent with his medically determinable impairments, functional
limitations, age, education and past work experience, the ALJ concluded that Ekdahl was not

disabled.

The Legal Standard
Our review of final decisions of the Commissioner (here, the ALJ) is deferential.? The Social
Security Act establishes that findings as to any fact are conclusive if supported by substantial
evidence and no error of law occurred. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence means “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Dixon
vy. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1176 (7th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted). We do not reevaluate
the facts, reweigh the evidence or substitute our own judgment for that of the ALJ. Knight v. Chater,

55 F.3d 309, 313 (7th Cir. 1995).

Discussion
The SSA regulations provide for a five-step inquiry to determine whether a claimant is

disabled.‘ If a claimant satisfies step four, inability to perform past work, then the burden shifts to

3 The ALJ’s decision is the final decision of the Commissioner because the SSA Appeals Council denied
Ekdahl’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision. (R. 8.) 20 C.F.R. § 404.981.

* ‘The five steps are: (1) whether the claimant is currently employed; (2) whether the claimant has a severe
impairment; (3) whether the claimant's impairment meets or equals one of the impairments listed by the SSA; (4) whether
the claimant can perform his past work; and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing work in the national
economy. See Knight, 55 F.3d at 313; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.

-7-


Ekdahl was able to work at the medium physical demand level of an eight-hour workday according
to U.S. Department of Labor standards. Graziano noted that Ekdahl had significant difficulty when
attempting to perform shoulder lifting activities and overhead lifting activities because of his right
shoulder dysfunction. Graziano recommended that Ekdahl continue with his home physical therapy
program and noted that a general physical fitness program would benefit Ekdahl by improving his
physical demand and enhancing his employment opportunities.

In 1997, in connection with a worker’s compensation claim filed by Ekdahl, Dr. Peter
Farrago stated that Ekdahl has a history of significant occupational exposure to asbestos and that,
within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the pleural thickening detected in the 1994 chest x-
Tay was a direct result of asbestos exposure.

In September 1998, approximately three months after Ekdahl’s alleged disability onset date,
Ekdahl underwent a psychiatric examination at the request of the state disability examiners. The
examining physician concluded that Ekdahl did not have a psychiatric disorder. A few days later,
again at the request of the state disability examiners, Ekdahl was seen by Dr. Karen Leone for an
internal medicine examination. Leone noted that Ekdahl had limited range of motion in the right
shoulder, and that Ekdahl complained of pain in the left shoulder after doing lifting and constant pain
in his right shoulder. She also noted that Ekdahl complained of shortness of breath at times.

A November 1998 Residual Functional Capacity Assessment (“RFCA”) showed that Ekdahl
could lift twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently, and that he could sit and stand
and/or walk, in each case, for six hours during an eight-hour workday. It was also noted that Ekdahl
could only occasionally climb or crawl and that he needed to avoid overhead work. In addition, the

RFCA indicated that Ekdahl should avoid working around respiratory irritants. The RFCA was

-3-



Relevant Facts
Ekdahl claims he has been disabled since June 8, 1998, the “disability onset date.” Ekdahl
was fifty-five years old at the time of the ALJ’s decision and is a high school graduate. His past

relevant work experience is as a journeyman electrician.

Medical Evidence

Medical evidence from both before and after June 8, 1998 was submitted to the ALJ. The
evidence showed the following: In 1991, Ekdahl was diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis of the left
shoulder. In 1994, a chest x-ray showed mild pleural thickening in the left hemithorax, consistent
with asbestos-related pleural disease. In 1995, following a workplace injury, Ekdahi was diagnosed
with a rotator cuff sprain of his right shoulder. X-rays taken at that time showed no bone or joint
injury.

In January 1996, Ekdahl underwent a bone scan. The bone scan showed a mildly increased
uptake in his right shoulder area but the clinical significance of this finding was unknown. Two
months later, Ekdahl underwent arthroscopy of his right shoulder and subacromial arthroscopic
decompression. The preoperative diagnosis was right shoulder rotator cuff impingement syndrome
and probable rotator cuff tear. Even after participating in a physical therapy program, Ekdahl
continued to complain of persistent limited range of motion and pain, and so in August 1996 he
underwent a closed manipulation of his right shoulder and right shoulder arthroscopy with
debridement.’

In November 1996, after many months of physical therapy, Ekdah] underwent a Functional

Capacity Evaluation (“FCE”) with David Graziano, a physical therapist. The FCE showed that

-2-



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

EASTERN DIVISION
RAYMOND EKDAHL, ) OCT 3 0 2003
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 02 C 8603
) Paul E. Plunkett, Senior Judge
JOANNE B. BARNHART, )
Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Through a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56 motion for summary judgment,
plaintiff Raymond Ekdahl (“Ekdah!”) seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying his application for disability insurance benefits
under Title I of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416, 423. Ekdahl claims that the
Administrative Law Judge’s (the “ALJ”) decision to deny him benefits should be reversed and set
aside because the ALJ’s conclusion that there are a significant number of jobs in the national
economy which Ekdahl can perform is contrary to the facts. The Commissioner has also filed a Rule
56 motion for summary judgment, arguing that substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s
finding. For the following reasons, we deny Ekdahl’s motion for summary judgment and grant the

Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.



Terry v. Sullivan, 903 F.2d 1273, 1277 (9th Cir. 1990) (acquired skills are not transferable to
unskilled work); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(d)(4). Moreover, Mendrick’s testimony describing the type
of semi-skilled electrical assembly jobs he included in the number of available jobs is consistent with
the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and supports the ALJ’s conclusion that these jobs are available
to Ekdahl. (R. 50 - 55.) See Powers v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 431, 436 (7th Cir. 2000) (hearing officer

entitled to rely on expert testimony even if it contradicts Dictionary of Occupational Titles).

Conclusion
We find the Commissioner’s decision that Ekdahl is not disabled is supported by substantial
evidence. Accordingly, Ekdahl’s motion for summary judgment is denied and the Commissioner’s

motion for summary judgment is granted. This is a final and appealable order.

ENTER:

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

paTep: _/0-29-03

-12-