May 17, 2017
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, South Bend Division. No. 3:15-cv-00118 -
Philip P. Simon, Judge.
Wood, Chief Judge, and Manion and Hamilton, Circuit Judges.
Manion, Circuit Judge.
Summers appeals from the judgment of the district court
affirming the Social Security Commissioner's denial other
application for disability insurance benefits. We affirm.
February 24, 2012, Gotoimoana Summers was fired from her job
as a production-line worker in Elkhart, Indiana. She applied
for disability insurance benefits shortly afterwards,
alleging that she became disabled on the date she was fired.
The Social Security Administration denied the application and
scheduled a hearing before an administrative law judge at
Summers's request. Summers attended the hearing with
counsel and testified that she was unable to work because of
headaches, difficulty breathing, atrial fibrillation, and
dizziness with blackouts. She also submitted medical evidence
indicating that she suffered from depression, anxiety,
obesity, and sleep apnea. She testified that before her most
recent job, she worked for an RV supply company assembling
lightweight parts in an assembly line. Asked to describe a
typical day, Summers replied, "Sometimes, I have bad
days. Sometimes, I don't think. Sometimes, I get
also made several inconsistent statements during the hearing,
mostly about her work history and her use of drugs and
alcohol. For instance, she initially testified that she left
work for health reasons but then later admitted that she was
fired. And she retracted her testimony that she had never
used marijuana when the ALJ confronted her with records
documenting her own previous admission to the contrary.
the end of the hearing, the ALJ asked a Vocational Expert
whether a hypothetical individual who was limited to a
restricted range of light work could perform any of
Sum-mers's past jobs. The VE responded that such an
individual could perform Summers's past job as an
assembler, as well as other jobs (such as inspector and hand
packager, photocopy machine operator, and palletizer) that
exist in significant numbers in the national economy.
November 2013, the ALJ issued a written decision concluding
that despite her medical impairments, Summers retained the
Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform a substantially
limited range of light work,  including her past work as an
assembler and the other work identified by the VE. The ALJ
also found that Summers was "not entirely credible"
in light of her repeated inconsistent statements. Ultimately,
the ALJ determined that Summers was not disabled from the
time of her alleged onset date through the date of the
ALJ's decision was upheld by the Social Security Appeals
Council and became the final decision of the Commissioner.
Summers appealed the Commissioner's decision to the
district court, and the district court affirmed the
Commissioner's denial of benefits. See 42 U.S.C. §
review the ALJ's decision to determine whether it applies
the correct legal standard and is supported by substantial
evidence. Castile v. Astrue, 617 F.3d 923, 926 (7th
Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence is "such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion." Id. Our review is
deferential; we will not reweigh the evidence or substitute
our judgment for that of the ALJ. Shideler v.
Astrue, 688 F.3d 306, 310 (7th Cir. 2012).
raises five issues on appeal. She raised the same issues
below, and the district court very ably handled them in a
thorough and lucid opinion. Because Summers has chosen to
ignore the reasoning of the district court's opinion and
instead focus exclusively on the merits of the ALJ's
decision, we'll keep our remarks short. See
Castile, 617 F.3d at 926 (noting that an appellant
who fails to address the district court's analysis of the
ALJ's decision engages in a "'risky tactic,
' especially ... where the ...