IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION

Jennifer R., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Case No.: 20-cv-50184 

v. ) 

 ) Magistrate Judge Margaret J. Schneider 

Kilolo Kijakazi, ) 

Commissioner of Social Security,1 ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Jennifer R. seeks review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social 

Security Administration denying her disability benefits. The parties have filed cross motions for 

summary judgment [20], [27]. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment [20] is granted and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment [27], is denied. 

This matter is remanded for further proceedings. 

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On August 25, 2016, Jennifer R. (“Plaintiff”) applied for Disability Insurance Benefits. R. 

21. This application alleged a disability beginning on July 10, 2015. Id. The Social Security 

Administration (“Commissioner”) denied her application on March 7, 2017, and upon 

reconsideration on June 22, 2017. Id. Plaintiff filed a written request for a hearing on June 30, 

2017. Id. On February 4, 2019, a hearing was held by Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Lana 

Johnson where Jennifer R. appeared and testified. Plaintiff was represented by counsel. Id. At the 

hearing, medical expert Cheryl R. Buechner, Ph.D., appeared and testified, as did vocational expert 

Linda M. Gels. Id. 

On May 1, 2019, the ALJ issued her written opinion denying Plaintiff’s claims for 

disability insurance benefits. R. 21–42. Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Appeals Council, and 

the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. R. 1–7. Plaintiff now seeks judicial 

review of the ALJ’s decision, which stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. See 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g); Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 841 (7th Cir. 2007). The parties have consented 

to the jurisdiction of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); [16]. Now before the Court are Plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment [20] and the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment 

and response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [27].

1 Kilolo Kijakazi has been substituted for Andrew Saul. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

Case: 3:20-cv-50184 Document #: 33 Filed: 03/24/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:2805
2

B. The ALJ’s Decision

In her ruling, the ALJ analyzed the statutorily required five-step analysis to determine 

whether Plaintiff was disabled under the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). At 

step one of the five-step analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not been engaging in substantial 

gainful activity since the alleged onset date of July 10, 2015. R. 23. At step two, the ALJ found 

that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: major depressive disorder/persistent 

depressive disorder; post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”); personality disorder; generalized 

anxiety disorder; panic disorder without agoraphobia; and migraine headaches with psychogenic 

syncope. R.24. The ALJ found that these impairments significantly limited Plaintiff’s ability to 

perform basic work activities. Id. At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an 

impairment or combination or impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of an 

impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. R. 25. 

Before step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) 

to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following non-exertional 

limitations: she could never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, but could frequently balance. She 

could have occasional exposure to extreme cold, unprotected heights and dangerous heavy moving 

machinery, but cannot work in an environment with very loud noise. She could understand, 

remember, and carry out simple routine tasks. She could not meet fast-paced hourly production 

goals but would be able to meet end-of-day goals. She could use judgment limited to simple workrelated decisions. She could have occasional interaction with supervisors and brief and superficial 

interaction with the general public. She could be off task less than 10% in a workday. R. 27. At 

step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff could not perform any past relevant work. R. 40. Finally, at 

step five, the ALJ found that considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and RFC, 

there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could 

perform, including cleaner-housekeeper, hand packager, and hospital cleaner. R. 41. Therefore, 

the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act at any time from 

July 10, 2015, through the date of decision, May 1, 2019. R. 42. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The reviewing court reviews the ALJ’s determination to establish whether it is supported 

by “substantial evidence,” meaning “‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion.’” Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118, 1120–21 (7th Cir. 2014) 

(quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). Substantial evidence is “more than a 

mere scintilla.” Wright v. Kijakazi, No. 20-2715, 2021 WL 3832347, at *5 (7th Cir. 2021). 

“Whatever the meaning of ‘substantial’ in other contexts, the Supreme Court has emphasized, ‘the 

threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is not high.’” Id. (quoting Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 

1148, 1153 (2019)). As such, the reviewing court takes a limited role and cannot displace the 

decision by reconsidering facts or evidence or by making independent credibility determinations.

Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413 (7th Cir. 2008). “’Although this standard is generous, it is not 

entirely uncritical’, and the case must be remanded if the ‘decision lacks evidentiary support.’” 

Horner v. Berryhill, No. 17 C 7586, 2018 WL 3920660, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2018), quoting 

Steele v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936, 940 (7th Cir. 2002). As to step three of the ALJ’s analysis – the 

listing – “A claimant bears the burden to show that her impairments meet a listing and that the 

Case: 3:20-cv-50184 Document #: 33 Filed: 03/24/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:2806
3

impairments satisfy all criteria of the listing.” Melissa G. v. Saul, No. 18 CV 50218, 2019 WL 

4392995, at * 6 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2019). 

DISCUSSION

The ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from a severe migraine disorder. R. 25. Under the 

ALJ’s residual functional capacity analysis of her decision, the ALJ recounted Plaintiff’s migraine 

disorder history, as supported by the medical records. The ALJ found that, beginning in August 

2014, Plaintiff suffered from a 3-day migraine. At that time, Plaintiff was taking Topiramate twice 

a day for migraine prevention. R. 29. Anne Lewis, ARPN found that her migraines were “fairly 

well managed.” In October of 2014, Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital after seeing neurologist 

Rodney Short, M.D., with a 3-day headache. Id. While she became headache-free upon release 

from the hospital, the headaches returned after discharge. R. 30. In March of 2015, Plaintiff 

reported experiencing migraines over 15 days a month and lasting four hours long. In May of 2015, 

Plaintiff saw Terry Donald, M.D. for evaluation following a consultation at the Mayo Clinic. She 

reported at that time she was experiencing headaches accompanied by passing out. Id. In 

September of 2015, Plaintiff saw neurologist Chigolum Eze, M.D. for evaluation of headaches and 

passing out. Dr. Eze increased Plaintiff’s Topamax prescription. In November of 2015, neurologist 

George Urban, M.D. admitted Plaintiff to the hospital for 13 days due to intractable, chronic 

headaches. Id. Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital again in April of 2016 for intractable 

headaches. R. 32. In October of 2016, Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital by Dr. Urban for 10 

days due to uncontrollable headaches. R. 33. In April of 2017, Plaintiff was admitted to the 

Diamond Headache Inpatient Unit at Presence St. Joseph Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, for 

migraine pain. R. 35. She was again admitted to this Unit in February 2018. R. 36. Plaintiff was 

seen in the emergency department in May of 2018 following a reported syncopal episode while at 

her doctor’s office. Id. In November of 2018, Plaintiff received injections of Methadone and 

Promethazine to help control her intractable migraine. Id. The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s chronic 

pain was related to migraines, which Plaintiff had reported to be constant, worsening, and severe. 

R. 37. The ALJ stated: “While [Plaintiff] has had multiple admissions for migraine headache 

control...she had reported Benadryl and biofeedback techniques were effective.” Id.

At step three of the ALJ’s analysis, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not have an 

impairment or combination of impairments that meet or equal the severity of one of the listed 

impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Plaintiff alleges the ALJ failed at step 

three to properly assess whether Plaintiff’s condition satisfied listing 11.02. 

If an ALJ determines that a claimant meets or equals the severity of a listed impairment, 

the claimant is presumptively disabled. In this case, there is no dispute that while there is no 

specific listing for migraine headaches, listing 11.02(B), the listing for epilepsy, is routinely 

applied in evaluating migraines. Listing 11.02(B) provides: “Dyscognitive seizures [here: 

migraines] occurring at least once a week for at least 3 consecutive months despite adherence to 

prescribed treatment.” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P. Appx. 1 § 11.02(B). “Courts routinely apply 

the epilepsy Listing 11.02 when analyzing a claimant’s severe migraines because there is no 

separate listing for migraines or headaches.” Melissa G., 2019 WL 4392995, at * 6, citing Cooper 

v. Berryhill, 244 F.Supp.3d 824, 829 (S.D. Ind. 2017). 

Case: 3:20-cv-50184 Document #: 33 Filed: 03/24/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:2807
4

Here, the ALJ acknowledged that Plaintiff’s severe migraines would be considered akin to 

dyscognitive seizures, hence, listing 11.02(B). However, the ALJ found that the record failed to 

support evidence of “extreme limitation” under listing 11.00D2, nor evidence of a marked 

limitation of physical functioning. The ALJ further found that the record failed to support the 

required “frequency” of migraines: “once a week or once every two weeks.” R. 25. Regarding 

frequency, the ALJ stated that while Plaintiff kept a detailed “syncope” journal and claimed she 

had been passing out most of her life, these representations are not corroborated by the medical 

evidence, nor are these episodes counted under listing 11.02. Id. The ALJ further noted that while 

Plaintiff claimed to have severe migraines, on exam she presented with “no acute distress.” Id. As 

to a step three analysis of Plaintiff’s claims of migraine headaches and impairment under listing 

11.02(B), this sums up the ALJ’s findings.

Plaintiff argues her headaches occurred nearly daily, were severe (requiring 

hospitalization) and accompanied by syncope and other physical side effects, and she was 

prescribed numerous medications – meeting the requirements of listing 11.02(B). She argues the 

ALJ failed to provide any support for her finding that Plaintiff did not meet or equal listing 

11.02(B). The Court agrees that the medical records suggest that Plaintiff experienced severe 

migraines at least once a week for well over a year. The record also notes that Plaintiff followed 

numerous treatment recommendations by several neurologists and other medical professionals, 

including medication therapy. For its part, the Commissioner argues that the ALJ properly found 

that the Plaintiff’s migraine condition failed to satisfy listing 11.02, since the ALJ “need only state 

that a claimant’s impairment does not medically equal a listing impairment.” [27], p. 4. The 

Commissioner cites to Jeske v. Saul, 955 F.3d 583, 588 (7th Cir. 2020), for the proposition that 

“[w]hen evaluating whether an impairment is presumptively disabling under a listing, the ALJ 

must discuss the listing by name and offer more than a perfunctory analysis of the listing.” Id. 

(citing Barnett v. Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff agrees with this standard, 

but the parties diverge regarding the ALJ’s analysis. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ did 

enough by recognizing that migraines fall under listing 11.02(B) and determining that Plaintiff did 

not satisfy any part of that listing. The Commissioner also notes that the ALJ opined that Plaintiff 

failed to prove the weekly qualifying migraine requirement. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ did not 

provide a supported rationale for her findings. Citing to Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 935-36 

(7th Cir. 2015), Plaintiff notes Seventh Circuit findings that a “perfunctory” analysis can be found 

inadequate to dismiss an impairment as not meeting or equaling a listing. Minnick cites to cases 

where the court has found that that ALJ’s analysis “failed to articulate [a] rationale;” was 

“inadequate and warrant[ed] remand;” and was “devoid” of an analysis that would aid a judicial 

review. See also Shulfer v. Kijakazi, No. 20-cv-586-jdp, 2021 WL 4317043, at * 4 (W.D. Wisc. 

Sept. 23, 2021) (“the ALJ erred by failing to provide any analysis of whether Shulfer’s impairment 

medically equaled Listing 11.02(B)). 

Here, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ failed to provide more than a 

“perfunctory” analysis of listing 11.02(B). The ALJ did little more than to acknowledge listing 

11.02(B) as applying to Plaintiff, setting out the requirements, and then concluding that Plaintiff’s 

medical records did not support her accounts. In evaluating “frequency” (to meet the listing 

11.02(B) requirement), the ALJ found that the medical records did not support Plaintiff’s personal 

accounts of passing out, despite Plaintiff’s “very detailed ‘Syncope Journal.’” R. 25. The ALJ also 

noted that the medical records showed Plaintiff had “psychogenic, non-epileptic syncope 

Case: 3:20-cv-50184 Document #: 33 Filed: 03/24/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:2808
5

episodes” that would be covered under an 11.02(B) listing. What appears to be missing from the 

ALJ’s decision is an analysis of Plaintiff’s severe migraine disorder as it would relate to a finding 

under listing 11.02(B). The ALJ found that Plaintiff had severe migraine pain “but on exams, she 

was in no acute distress.” This being the most substantive comment by the ALJ regarding 

Plaintiff’s migraines (as considered under listing 11.02(B)), the Court finds that it is not enough to 

satisfy the Court of a proper, more than perfunctory, analysis.

CONCLUSION

The Court finds the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s migraine condition under listing 

11.02(B) lacks support and explanation. Therefore, the Court remands this matter to allow the ALJ 

to execute a suitable analysis of Plaintiff’s migraine symptoms and determine if Plaintiff’s 

impairment can satisfy listing 11.02(B). The Court offers no opinion as to the other bases of error 

in the ALJ’s decision, as raised by Plaintiff. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment [20], is granted. and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment [27]

is denied. This case is remanded for further proceedings.

Date: 03/24/2023 ENTER:

_______________________________

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 3:20-cv-50184 Document #: 33 Filed: 03/24/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:2809