Source: http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180330_0000445.NIN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:47:45+00:00

Document:
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
On February 21, 2017, Plaintiff Padma Prasad filed a complaint in this Court seeking review of the final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for disability insurance benefits. [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 consideration.
Prasad filed her initial application for benefits alleging disability beginning on October 17, 2012, due to several issues: affective disorder/depression; anxiety/paranoia; hypertension; cardiovascular disorder; ankle disorder; and right hand disorder. Her application was denied initially, on reconsideration, and following an administrative hearing in November 2015, at which she was represented by counsel. At that hearing, the ALJ heard testimony from Prasad and vocational expert Thomas Gusloff. Ultimately, the ALJ found that Prasad had the severe mental impairments of affective disorder/depression and anxiety disorder/paranoia, but could still perform certain jobs available in the national and regional economy. Therefore, the ALJ determined that she was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(g). The Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ's opinion, making the ALJ's decision the final determination of the Commissioner.
Because the Appeals Council denied review, the Court evaluates the ALJ's decision as the final word of the Commissioner of Social Security. Schomas v. Colvin, 732 F.3d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 2013). 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).
It is the duty of the ALJ to weigh the evidence, resolve material conflicts, make independent findings of fact, and dispose of the case accordingly. Perales, 402 U.S. at 399-400. 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 his or her findings. Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 887 (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: § 404
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.