Source: http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191121_0001582.NIN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-01-27 09:53:06
Document Index: 553073114

Matched Legal Cases: ['art, 374', '§ 423', '§ 423', '§ 405', '§ 404', 'art 404']

FindACase™ | Stiverson v. Saul
Stiverson v. Saul
REBECCA STIVERSON, Plaintiff,
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration[1], Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Rebecca Stiverson's (“Stiverson”) appeal of the Social Security Administration's Decision dated March 30, 2017 (the “Decision”). Stiverson filed her Complaint to Review Decision of Commissioner of Social Security Administration (ECF No. 1) on May 5, 2018. Stiverson filed her Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Complaint to Review Decision of Commissioner of Social Security Administration (ECF No. 14) on October 24, 2018. Defendant Andrew Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”), filed his Memorandum in Support of Commissioner's Decision (ECF No. 18) on December 31, 2018. This matter is now ripe for determination.
Nonetheless, if, after a “critical review of the evidence, ” the ALJ's decision “lacks evidentiary support or an adequate discussion of the issues, ” this Court will not affirm it. Lopez, 336 F.3d at 539 (citations omitted). While the ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence in the record, she “must build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to [the] conclusion.” Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1176 (7th Cir. 2001). Further, the ALJ “may not select and discuss only that evidence that favors his ultimate conclusion, ” Diaz, 55 F.3d at 308, but “must confront the evidence that does not support his conclusion and explain why it was rejected, ” Indoranto v. Barnhart, 374 F.3d 470, 474 (7th Cir. 2004). Ultimately, the ALJ must “sufficiently articulate [her] assessment of the evidence to assure” the court that she “considered the important evidence” and to enable the court “to trace the path of her reasoning.” Carlson v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 180, 181 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Stephens v. Heckler, 766 F.2d 284, 287 (7th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
2. The ALJ's Decision
A person suffering from a disability that renders her unable to work may apply to the Social Security Administration for disability benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A) (defining disability as 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”). To be found disabled, a claimant must demonstrate that her physical or mental limitations prevent her from doing not only her previous work, but also any other kind of gainful employment that exists in the national economy, considering her age, education, and work experience. § 423(d)(2)(A).
If a claimant's application is denied initially and on reconsideration, she may request a hearing before an ALJ. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(b)(1). An ALJ conducts a five-step inquiry in deciding whether to grant or deny benefits: (1) whether the claimant is currently employed, (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment, (3) whether the claimant's impairment is one that the Commissioner considers conclusively disabling, (4) if the claimant does not have a conclusively disabling impairment, whether he has the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work, and (5) whether the claimant is capable of performing any work in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a); Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 885 (7th Cir. 2001).
At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since December 14, 2013. At step two, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, fibromyalgia, and asthma. The ALJ further found that Plaintiff had the following non-severe impairments: hyperlipidemia, depression, and anxiety.
At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have “an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526).” (R. 20). At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to:
Perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except that the claimant can occasionally climb ramps, stairs, ladders, ropes, scaffolds, she can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl, and she should avoid concentrated exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, gases and other similar respiratory irritants.
(R. 20-21.) At step five, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work as a cashier, service coordinator, and management trainee ...