Source: http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180320_0000381.SIN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:34:35+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff Susan L. Druley applied in September 2014 for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income disability benefits (SSI) under Titles II and XVI, respectively, of the Social Security Act, alleging she has been disabled since September 3, 2014. Acting for the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration following a hearing on August 16, 2016, administrative law judge Kimberly Sorg-Graves issued a decision on October 27, 2016, that Ms. Druley is not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ's decision on January 24, 2017, rendering the ALJ's decision for the Commissioner final. Ms. Druley timely filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of the Commissioner's decision. The parties consented to the magistrate judge conducting all proceedings and ordering the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.
Ms. Druley asserts that the ALJ erred in her analysis of whether she had acquired work skills appropriately transferable to the three jobs the ALJ found she was capable of performing. Therefore, argues Ms. Druley, the decision at step five is not supported by substantial evidence.
The court will first describe the legal framework for analyzing disability claims and the court's standard of review, and then address Ms. Druley's specific assertions of error.
To prove disability, a claimant must show she is unable to “engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A) (DIB benefits); 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A) (SSI benefits). Ms. Druley is disabled if her impairments are of such severity that she is not able to perform the work she previously engaged in and, if based on her age, education, and work experience, she cannot engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). The Social Security Administration has implemented these statutory standards by, in part, prescribing a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
The ALJ is required to articulate a minimal, but legitimate, justification for her decision to accept or reject specific evidence of a disability. Scheck v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697, 700 (7th Cir. 2004). The ALJ need not address every piece of evidence in her decision, but she cannot ignore a line of evidence that undermines the conclusions she made, and she must trace the path of her reasoning and connect the evidence to her findings and conclusions. Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 592 (7thCir. 2012); Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000).

References: § 405
 § 636
 § 423
 § 1382
 § 423
 § 404
 v. 
 v. 
 v.