Source: http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180308_0000305.NIN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:34:50+00:00

Document:
On November 16, 2016, Plaintiff John Motts filed a complaint in this Court seeking review of the final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. [DE 1] The matter is fully briefed and ripe for review. For the reasons stated below, the Court will remand this matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
Motts filed his initial applications for benefits alleging disability beginning March 7, 2013, due to several issues: lumbar spine scoliosis; degenerative disc disease; and a cognitive disorder resulting from a traumatic brain injury. His application was denied initially, on reconsideration, and following an administrative hearing in April 2015, at which he was represented by counsel. At that hearing, the ALJ heard testimony from Motts, Motts's sister Carol Jo Rowland, and vocational expert Bonnie Martindale. The ALJ found that Motts had some severe physical impairments but could still perform certain jobs available in the national and regional economy, and he was therefore not disabled within the meaning of the Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). The Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ decision, making the ALJ's decision the final determination of the Commissioner.
This Court will affirm the Commissioner's findings of fact and denial of disability benefits if they are supported by substantial evidence. Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 673 (7th Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence consists of “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). This evidence must be “more than a scintilla but may be less than a preponderance.” Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 841 (7th Cir. 2007). Thus, even if “reasonable minds could differ” about the disability status of the claimant, the Court must affirm the Commissioner's decision as long as it is adequately supported. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413 (7th Cir. 2008).
In this substantial-evidence determination, the Court considers the entire administrative record but does not reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts, decide questions of credibility, or substitute the Court's own judgment for that of the Commissioner. Lopez ex rel. Lopez v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 535, 539 (7th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, the Court conducts a “critical review of the evidence” before affirming the Commissioner's decision. Id. An ALJ must evaluate both the evidence favoring the claimant as well as the evidence favoring the claim's rejection and may not ignore an entire line of evidence that is contrary to the ALJ's findings. Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 888 (7th Cir. 2001). Consequently, an ALJ's decision cannot stand if it lacks evidentiary support or an adequate discussion of the issues. Lopez, 336 F.3d at 539. While the ALJ is not required to address every piece of evidence or testimony presented, the ALJ must provide a “logical bridge” between the evidence and the conclusions. Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 475 (7th Cir. 2009).

References: § 416
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.