UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Andre Ellis, 

Plaintiff,

v.

KILILO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of the 

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 20-cv-4582

Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Andre E.

1 appeals the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security 

Administration (“Commissioner”) denying his application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”)

under the Social Security Act. The Parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. For the 

reasons detailed below, Plaintiff’s motion (dkt. 16) is granted and the Commissioner’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment (dkt. 22) is denied. This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with 

this opinion. 

I. Background

On April 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed claims for SSI with an onset date of January 1, 2016. (R. 13.) 

The claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration, after which Plaintiff timely requested a 

hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The hearing was held on October 9, 2019. (Id.) 

On October 20, 2019, the ALJ denied Plaintiff’s claim, finding him not disabled under the Act and 

therefore ineligible for benefits. (R. 13-20.) On June 16, 2020, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s 

request for review, (R. 1-3), leaving the ALJ’s decision as the final decision of the Commissioner, 

1

 In accordance with Northern District of Illinois Internal Operating Procedure 22, the Court refers to Plaintiff only by 

his first name and the first initial of his last name(s).

Case: 1:20-cv-04582 Document #: 25 Filed: 04/11/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:439
2

reviewable by the District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Haynes v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 621, 

626 (7th Cir. 2005).

The ALJ issued a written decision on October 30, 2019, following the five-step analytical 

process required by 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. (R. 13-20.) At Step One, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has

not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 17, 2018. (R. 15.) At Step Two, the ALJ 

concluded that Plaintiff has the following medically determinable impairments: degenerative disease 

of the cervical and lumbar spine, degenerative joint disease of the left knee, substance abuse disorder, 

left shoulder pain post status gunshot wound, degenerative joint disease of the sacroiliac joint, and 

obesity. (Id.) The ALJ then found that none of those medically determinable impairments or any 

combination thereof significantly limited Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic work-related activities 

for twelve months; in other words, Plaintiff did not have a severe impairment or combination of 

impairments. (R. 16.) These findings led to the conclusion that Plaintiff is not disabled as defined by 

the Act. (R. 20.)

In deciding that the analysis should stop at Step Two, the ALJ relied heavily on the Internal 

Medicine Consultative Examination performed by Dr. M.S. Patil, M.D., on July 25, 2018. 

(R. 253-256.) Generally, Dr. Patil’s examination revealed that Plaintiff functioned normally, and he 

was able to perform the vast majority of the tests with no limitations. (Id.) These findings generally 

comport with the diagnostic testing from 2018, including an x-ray of the lumbar spine and left 

shoulder on April 23, 2018, showing only degenerative changes of the lower lumbar spine and a 

radiographically normal left shoulder. (R. 240-41.) However, all parties agree the relevant time period 

extends from April 17, 2018, through October 2019. (See Dkt 23 at 3.) The medical records suggest 

that Plaintiff’s condition may have deteriorated between his examination with Dr. Patil on July 25, 

2018 and the time of the ALJ’s decision in October 2019. For example, while he was able to walk 

without assistance for 50 feet at the examination with Dr. Patil, Plaintiff was using a cane to walk as 

Case: 1:20-cv-04582 Document #: 25 Filed: 04/11/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:440
3

of November 10, 2018. (R. 331.) Additionally, although Dr. Patil found that Plaintiff’s “[s]uperficial 

and deep sensations were unimpaired” (R. 255), Plaintiff also later demonstrated bilateral leg 

weakness and a sensory deficit in his right leg (i.e., “anaesthesia of the lateral surface of the right 

leg”) on November 10, 2018. (R. 331.) Moreover, while Dr. Patil noted a normal gait (R. 255), on 

July 9, 2019, Plaintiff was noted to have “antalgic gait and posture.” (R. 341.) Finally, an x-ray of the 

lumbar spine on August 1, 2019, showed that Plaintiff’s back issues had worsened; the x-ray revealed 

moderate-to-severe disc space narrowing at the L5-S1 joint and mild-to-moderate disc space 

narrowing at L4-L5. (R. 349.)

II. Social Security Regulations and Standard of Review

The Social Security Act requires all applicants to prove they are disabled as of their date last 

insured to be eligible for disability insurance benefits. ALJs are required to follow a sequential fivestep test to assess whether a claimant is legally disabled. The ALJ must determine: (1) whether the 

claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe 

impairment; and (3) whether the severe impairment meets or equals one considered conclusively 

disabling such that the claimant is impeded from performing basic work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1520; 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v). If the impairment(s) does meet or equal this standard, 

the inquiry is over and the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). If not, the evaluation 

continues and the ALJ must determine (4) whether the claimant is capable of performing his past 

relevant work. Cannon v. Harris, 651 F.2d 513, 517 (7th Cir. 1981). If not, the ALJ must (5) consider 

the claimant’s age, education, and prior work experience and evaluate whether she is able to engage 

in another type of work existing in a significant number of jobs in the national economy. Id. At the 

fourth and fifth steps of the inquiry, the ALJ is required to evaluate the claimant’s RFC in calculating 

which work-related activities she is capable of performing given his limitations. Young v. Barnhart, 

362 F.3d 995, 1000 (7th Cir. 2004). In the final step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show 

Case: 1:20-cv-04582 Document #: 25 Filed: 04/11/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:441
4

there are significant jobs available that the claimant is able to perform. Smith v. Schweiker, 735 F.2d 

267, 270 (7th Cir. 1984).

In disability insurance benefits cases, a court’s scope of review is limited to deciding whether 

the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is based upon substantial evidence and the 

proper legal criteria. Scheck v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697, 699 (7th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence 

exists when a “reasonable mind might accept [the evidence] as adequate to support a conclusion.”

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 887 (7th Cir. 

2001). While reviewing a commissioner’s decision, the Court may not “reweigh evidence, resolve 

conflicts in the record, decide questions of credibility, or substitute [its] own judgment for that of the 

Commissioner.” Young, 362 F.3d at 1001. Although the Court reviews the ALJ’s decision 

deferentially, the ALJ must nevertheless “build an accurate and logical bridge” between the evidence 

and his conclusion. Steele v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted). 

Even where “reasonable minds could differ” or an alternative position is also supported by substantial 

evidence, the ALJ’s judgment must be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence. Elder v. Astrue, 

529 F.3d 408, 413 (7th Cir. 2008); Scheck, 357 F.3d at 699. On the other hand, the Court cannot let 

the Commissioner’s decision stand if the decision lacks sufficient evidentiary support, an adequate 

discussion of the issues, or is undermined by legal error. Lopez ex rel. Lopez v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 

535,539 (7th Cir. 2003); see also, 42 U.S.C.§ 405(g).

III. Discussion

The Court finds that the ALJ erred in the Step Two analysis because the medical evidence did 

not clearly establish that Plaintiff’s impairment or combination of impairments had only a minimal 

effect on Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic work activities. At Step Two, “[t]he severity requirement 

cannot be satisfied when medical evidence shows that the person has the ability to perform basic work 

activities, as required in most jobs.” SSR 85-28. For the purposes of this opinion, such relevant work 

Case: 1:20-cv-04582 Document #: 25 Filed: 04/11/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:442
5

activities would include “walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching, carrying or 

handling.” SSR 85-28. “A claim may be denied at step two only if the evidence shows that the 

individual's impairments, when considered in combination, are not medically severe, i.e., do not have 

more than a minimal effect on the person’s physical or mental ability(ies) to perform basic work 

activities.” Id. “If such a finding is not clearly established by medical evidence, however, adjudication 

must continue through the sequential evaluation process.” Id. The Social Security Regulations state 

that ALJs should take “[g]reat care...in applying the not severe impairment concept,” and the Seventh 

Circuit has repeatedly noted that the Step Two analysis is as “a de minimis screening for groundless 

claims.” See, e.g., Thomas v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 923, 960 (7th Cir. 2016).

Walking is considered a basic work activity. As noted above, the medical evidence suggests

Plaintiff had more than minimal difficulty walking; he needed a cane to ambulate, walked with a limp, 

and demonstrated bilateral leg weakness and numbness in his right leg. Much of this evidence also 

post-dates his consultative exam with Dr. Patil, which casts doubts on whether Dr. Patil’s findings 

constitute an accurate understanding of the effects of Plaintiff’s impairments during the entirety of 

the relevant time period. Also, the diagnostic imaging on Plaintiff’s lumbar spine indicates his 

degenerative disc disease of the sacroiliac joint worsened over time, going from mere “narrowing of 

the intervertebral disc joints at...L5-S1” in April 2018 (R. 240), to moderate-to-severe disc space 

narrowing at the L5-S1 in August 2019. (R. 341.) The Social Security Regulations demand the 

medical evidence clearly establish that Plaintiff’s impairments do not have more than a minimal effect 

on his ability to perform basic work activities like walking. Here, the medical evidence does not 

clearly establish that fact; at best, it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s impairments have more than a 

minimal effect on his ability to walk. Certainly, evidence of assisted ambulation, antalgic gait, and 

moderate-to-severe disc narrowing with radiculopathy cloud the effect of Plaintiff’s degenerative disc 

disease of the sacroiliac joint on his ability to walk. As such, the Court finds the ALJ committed an 

Case: 1:20-cv-04582 Document #: 25 Filed: 04/11/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:443
6 

error in the Step Two analysis. The Court is not suggesting Plaintiff’s impairments or combination or 

impairments render him disabled under the Social Security Act; it is certainly possible there are ample 

jobs in the economy Plaintiff can perform despite any potential limitations. However, the medical 

evidence in the Administrative Record did not clearly establish that Plaintiff’s impairment or 

combination of impairments had only a minimal effect on Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic work 

activities, and the ALJ’s analysis should have continued beyond Step Two.2

IV. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion (dkt. 16) is granted and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

(dkt. 22) is denied. This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Entered: 4/11/2022 

__________________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

Susan E. Cox 

2 Although neither side raised the issue, it is possible the ALJ made another error in Step Two. “If the medical 

evidence establishes only a slight abnormality(ies) which has no more than a minimal effect on a claimant's ability to do 

basic work activities, but evidence shows that the person cannot perform his or her past relevant work because of the 

unique features of that work, a denial at the ‘not severe’ step of the sequential evaluation process is inappropriate.” 

SSR 85-28. Plaintiff’s previous work as a Laborer from June 2004 through April 2012 included walking four hours per 

day, lifting up to 50 pounds, and frequently lifting 25 pounds. (R. 153-154.) The Court believes the ALJ should have 

considered whether Plaintiff was able to perform his past relevant work in light of his medically determinable 

impairments. Had the ALJ found he was not able to do so, it would have also been an error to stop the inquiry at Step 2.

Case: 1:20-cv-04582 Document #: 25 Filed: 04/11/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:444