Opinion ID: 3003116
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ALJ’s Order

Text: In his order, the ALJ followed the five‐step sequential evaluation process for determining if a claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). At step one, the ALJ found that Ziegler had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since he stopped working. At step two, the ALJ found that Ziegler was suffering from three severe impairments: obesity, anxiety disorder, and degenerative spinal disease. Next, at step three, the ALJ found that none of Ziegler’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment. Then, at step four, the ALJ found that Ziegler had the residual functional capacity to perform “a range of light work.” The ALJ credited Ziegler’s statements about the existence of his symptoms but refused to credit his statements about the severity of those symptoms. The ALJ refused to credit both Dr. Bush’s opinion, which the ALJ read to conclude that Ziegler could not perform light work, and Dr. Bohon’s opinion that Ziegler suffered severe mental limitations. Regarding Ziegler’s physical impairments, the ALJ relied on the bottom‐line conclusion of Pankratz, the physical therapist, who determined that Ziegler could perform No. 08‐3914 Page 6 light to medium work. As further support for crediting Pankratz over Dr. Bush, the ALJ asserted, incorrectly, that Dr. Bush had not reviewed Pankratz’s report. The ALJ also relied on evidence from the office of Dr. Dopf, the back surgeon. First, the ALJ reasoned that by directing Ziegler to his primary‐care physician for an evaluation, Dr. Dopf had “refused to assign any limitations at all.” Second, the ALJ relied on the comments of Batson, the nurse practitioner in Dr. Dopf’s office. The ALJ read Batson’s statement that Ziegler’s MRI was not consistent with his thoracic pain to mean that the MRI was not consistent with any of his symptoms. Regarding Ziegler’s mental impairments, the ALJ relied on the opinion of Dr. Bauer, the state‐agency therapist, who concluded that Ziegler had no severe mental impairment. The ALJ noted that Dr. Bauer’s opinion was affirmed by “other personnel of the State agency,” but what he was referring to is unclear. The ALJ discounted Dr. Bohon’s assessment because it was based primarily on Ziegler’s own reports and because the ALJ thought it was contradicted by the reports of Dr. Schneider, the VA internist. As the ALJ read Dr. Schneider’s notes, they did not “indicate anything but continued stability on medication.” The ALJ then concluded, based on his RFC finding and the VE’s testimony, that Ziegler was capable of “performing [his] past relevant work as a post office clerk.” According to the ALJ, the VE testified that Ziegler’s limitations “would not preclude [his] past work as a postal clerk as that job is generally performed within the national economy.” The ALJ continued on to step five and made an alternative finding, again based on the VE’s testimony, that jobs existed in significant numbers that someone with Ziegler’s limitations could perform. The ALJ did not mention the VE’s testimony regarding Ziegler’s performance on the test of occasional material handling. Accordingly, the ALJ found that Ziegler was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied Zieglerʹs request for review, making the ALJʹs decision the final decision of the Commissioner. The district court upheld that final decision. Ziegler, 576 F. Supp. 2d at 982.