Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rivera-Capeles v. Saul

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

September 23, 2019

LAURA RIVERA-CAPELES, Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge.

         Plaintiff Laura Rivera-Capeles filed this action for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff contends that the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ), which became final after the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, R. 1–3, was erroneous for three reasons: (1) the ALJ improperly evaluated the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating providers; (2) the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment (RFC) determination did not account for Plaintiff’s variable functioning or limitations from fibromyalgia; and (3) the ALJ’s credibility determination misstates the record and ignores entire lines of evidence. For the reasons stated below, the Commissioner’s decision will be reversed and remanded.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff previously applied for SSI and Disability Insurance Benefits in October 2012, and an ALJ found that she was not disabled on July 20, 2015. R. 101–16. Plaintiff did not appeal that decision. Plaintiff filed the present application for SSI on July 31, 2015, alleging disability beginning on July 21, 2015, due to back issues, anxiety, social withdrawal, bipolar disorder, blood clots, GERD, sleep apnea, mood disorder, myalgia, obesity, and personality changes. R. 13, 264, 284. After her application was denied initially and upon reconsideration, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an ALJ. R. 124, 140, 181. ALJ Koren Mueller conducted a hearing on July 11, 2017, at which Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, and a vocational expert (VE) testified. R. 28–54.

         At the hearing, Plaintiff testified that she received a bachelor’s degree in accounting when she lived in Puerto Rico. R. 33. Her most recent work occurred in 2012, also in Puerto Rico. R. 41–42. She testified that she was fired because her mental health problems resulted in too many absences. Id. In 2013, the year after she moved to the United States, Plaintiff attempted to work but stopped after two days because of pain and mental problems. R. 34, 42. Plaintiff described the type of work she performed in the past as secretarial. R. 34–35. When asked what prevents her from working, Plaintiff testified that she has pain all over her body, including constant lower back pain and pain in her hands and fingers; has paranoid schizophrenia, major depression, hallucinations (visual and auditory, including voices encouraging self-harm and harm to others), and bipolar disorder; loses her temperament, leading her to curse, threaten people, and get physical; has low energy and difficulty concentrating; and experiences swelling in her feet that requires her to elevate her feet at heart height. R. 35–37, 39–41, 43–45.

         As for daily living, Plaintiff testified that she makes breakfast, goes to doctor appointments, goes grocery shopping, washes dishes, goes to church, and sometimes drives. R. 46–47. She testified that she uses a prescribed cane to walk, can sit for about an hour before needing to stand, and can stand in the same spot for about ten minutes. R. 47–48. She estimated that, during an eight-hour daytime period, she is lying down for around three hours. R. 41. At the time of the hearing, it had been about three years since she left her house alone. R. 38. Plaintiff testified that, in fall 2014 and early 2015, she was hospitalized twice due to suicidal thoughts. R. 38–39. She estimated that, as a result of her depression, she experiences ten days in a typical month where she does not attend to her personal cares, stays in bed most of the day, and does not leave the house. R. 36, 45.

         In a written decision dated October 3, 2017, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had not been disabled as defined in the Social Security Act since her application date of July 31, 2015. R. 21. To reach this conclusion, the ALJ followed the Social Security Administration’s (SSA’s) five-step sequential evaluation process. See R. 14–15. At step one, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 31, 2015. R. 15. At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: lumbar spondylosis with radiculopathy, obesity, gout, anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. Id. At step three, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairment that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. R. 16.

         After consideration of the whole record, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the RFC to “perform sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 416.967(a) except the claimant is able to complete simple, routine tasks involving simple work related decisions with few workplace changes and no fast paced productivity requirements. She can occasionally interact with the general-public, coworkers and supervisors.” R. 17. At step four, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff had no past relevant work. R. 20. At step five, the ALJ determined that there exist jobs in the national economy in significant numbers that Plaintiff could perform, such as circuit board assembler, cutter, and document specialist. Id.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         The Commissioner’s decision will be upheld if the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and supported the decision with substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805, 811 (7th Cir. 2011). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 2010). Although a decision denying benefits need not discuss every piece of evidence, remand is appropriate when an ALJ fails to provide adequate support for the conclusions drawn. Jelinek, 662 F.3d at 811. The ALJ must provide a “logical bridge” between the evidence and conclusions. Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000).

         Additionally, the ALJ is expected to follow the SSA’s rulings and regulations in making a determination. Failure to do so, unless the error is harmless, requires reversal. Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731, 737–37 (7th Cir. 2006). In reviewing the entire record, the court does not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner by reconsidering facts, reweighing evidence, resolving conflicts in evidence, or deciding questions of credibility. Estok v. Apfel, 152 F.3d 636, 638 (7th Cir. 1998). Finally, judicial review is limited to the rationale offered by the ALJ. Shauger v. Astrue, 675 F.3d 690, 697 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 93–95 (1943); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 307 (7th Cir. 2010)).

         ANALYSIS

         Plaintiff first contends that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinions of her treating sources. Under the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s application, the ALJ must give a treating source’s medical opinion on the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments “controlling weight” if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in . . . [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); SSR 96–2p. If an ALJ gives the treating source’s opinion lesser weight, the ALJ must articulate “good reasons” for doing so. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). In such a case, “the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion” in determining the weight to give the medical opinion. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009).

         Plaintiff highlights several assessments from treating providers in the record. In a September 2014 assessment, Dr. Zittergruen opined that Plaintiff would be off task 10% of the workday; would work at 50% of the efficiency of the average worker; and could sit or stand/walk a total of less than two hours in an eight-hour day. R. 374–77. In another September 2014 assessment, advanced practice nurse practitioner (APNP) Nikki Kroner opined that Plaintiff would likely need to lie down for one hour each eight-hour day due to fatigue; would withdraw from work tasks and have intermittent verbal outbursts of anger once each week; be absent more than four days per month due to her impairments, with an additional three days each month where she would not leave the house due to panic/anxiety attacks, suspiciousness/paranoia, and delusions/hallucinations; require two to three unscheduled work breaks ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.