Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180711_0001479.SIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 17:25:37+00:00

Document:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Respondent.
CLIFFORD J. PROUD, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
In accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), plaintiff Sarah M. D., represented by counsel, seeks judicial review of the final agency decision denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 423.
Plaintiff applied for benefits in March 2013 alleging disability beginning in January 2012. (Tr. 190). Plaintiff was denied benefits, and requested an evidentiary hearing, which was held in June 2016 by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) George M. Bock. (Tr. 32). Plaintiff's application for benefits was denied. (Tr. 18-27). The Appeals Council denied review and the decision of the ALJ became the final agency decision. (Tr. 1-6). Plaintiff filed a timely complaint with this Court.
Plaintiff raises the specific issue that the ALJ committed reversible error by failing to account for plaintiff's moderate deficit in concentration, persistence, or pace (CPP) within the residual functional capacity (RFC) finding.
To qualify for DIB benefits, a claimant must be disabled within the meaning of the applicable statutes and regulations. For these purposes, “disabled” means the “inability 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 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
If the answer at steps one and two is “yes, ” the claimant will automatically be found disabled if he or she suffers from a listed impairment, determined at step three. If the claimant does not have a listed impairment at step three, and cannot perform his or her past work (step four), the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant can perform some other job. Rhoderick v. Heckler, 737 F.2d 714, 715 (7th Cir. 1984).
This Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to ensure that the decision is supported by substantial evidence and that no mistakes of law were made. It is important to recognize that the scope of review is limited. “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). Thus, this Court must determine not whether plaintiff was, in fact, disabled at the relevant time, but whether the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether any errors of law were made. See, Books v. Chater, 91 F.3d 972, 977-78 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing Diaz v. Chater, 55 F.3d 300, 306 (7th Cir. 1995)). This Court uses the Supreme Court's definition of substantial evidence, i.e., “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
ALJ Bock followed the five-step analytical framework described above. ALJ Bock found plaintiff was insured through December 31, 2016, and he determined that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity (SGA) since January 2012. The ALJ found plaintiff had severe impairments of depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), cervical degenerative disc disease, and migraine headaches. (Tr. 20). He also found plaintiff had moderate limitations in social function and in maintaining CPP. (Tr. 21). However, ALJ Bock determined none of plaintiff's impairments met or equaled the severity of a listed impairment. (Tr. 20).
ALJ Bock found plaintiff had the RFC to perform work at the light exertional level with several limitations, physical and mental. Relevant to plaintiff's issue, the mental limitations were that she can perform repetitive, unskilled, simple tasks with no complex instructions or interaction with the general public. (Tr. 22).
Based on plaintiff's earnings records and testimony from the vocational expert (VE), ALJ Bock found plaintiff was incapable of performing any past relevant work. However, he found other jobs existed in significant numbers within the national economy when considering plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC. (Tr. 26).

References: § 405
 § 423
 § 423
 v. 
 § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v.