Wydeven v. O'Malley

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin·Decided January 8, 2024·No. 1:22-cv-01163·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

RICHARD J. WYDEVEN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 22-CV-1163 MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security’, Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

Richard J. Wydeven seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his Title I] application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. For the reasons explained below, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed, and the case is dismissed. BACKGROUND On July 14, 2019, Wydeven filed a Title Il application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits alleging disability beginning on July 1, 2018 due to weakness, pain, and numbness in the legs; difficulty walking; arthritis; dizzy spells/fainting; gastro- intestinal issues and gastro-intestinal surgery; back pain; alcoholism; and depression. (Tr. 293.) Wydeven’s date last insured is September 30, 2018. (Tr. 1357.) Wydeven’s claim was denied initially on April 15, 2019 and upon reconsideration on August 26, 2019. (Tr. 1352.) Wydeven filed a request for a hearing, and a telephone hearing was held before

1 The Court has changed the caption to reflect Martin J. O’Malley’s recent appointment as Commissioner of Social Security.

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Guila Parker on May 5, 2020. (Tr. 43–63.) Wydeven, represented by counsel, testified, as did Adolph Cwik, a vocational expert (“VE”). (Id.) In a written decision issued June 2, 2020, ALJ Parker found that through Wydeven’s date last insured of September 30, 2018, there were no medical signs or laboratory findings to

substantiate the existence of a medically determinable impairment. (Tr. 36–37.) Thus, ALJ Parker found Wydeven was not disabled from July 1, 2018 through September 30, 2018. (Id.) The Appeals Council denied Wydeven’s request for review (Tr. 1–7), and Wydeven filed a complaint in this court on December 24, 2020, Case No. 20-CV-1902 (E.D. Wis.) (Tr. 1334– 35). The parties jointly moved to remand the case for further proceedings and on July 27, 2021, United States District Judge William C. Griesbach remanded the case. (Tr. 1336.) The Appeals Council issued an order on August 27, 2021. (Tr. 1341.) The Appeals Council noted that while the ALJ was correct that Wydeven sought no treatment between his alleged onset date of July 1, 2018 and his date last insured of September 30, 2018, medical

evidence existed in the record from shortly after the date last insured that suggested Wydeven did have a medically determinable impairment during the relevant period, such as November 2018 imaging showing degeneration in the spine and a November 2018 trip to the emergency room presenting with bilateral leg pain and substantial weight loss “in the last couple months.” (Id.) The Appeals Council further noted the ALJ failed to adequately address relevant evidence from prior to the onset date, as well as the opinions of the State Agency physicians. (Tr. 1342–43.) The ALJ was instructed on remand to give further consideration to the severity of Wydeven’s impairments, the prior administrative medical findings, Wydeven’s past relevant work, and, if warranted, to obtain supplemental evidence. (Tr. 1343.) Upon remand, the case was returned to ALJ Parker, who held an additional telephone hearing on January 12, 2022. (Tr. 1260–93.) Wydeven, again represented by counsel, testified at the hearing, as did VE Sarah Holmes (Id.) ALJ Parker issued a new decision on February 18, 2022. (Tr. 1352–68.) In this new decision, ALJ Parker found that Wydeven had the severe

impairment of colon mass with weight loss. (Tr. 1357.) The ALJ found that Wydeven did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 (the “Listings”). (Tr. 1360.) ALJ Parker found that through Wydeven’s date last insured, he had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform the full range of medium work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(c). (Tr. 1360–67.) The ALJ found that through his date last insured, Wydeven was capable of performing his past relevant work as a shipping and receiving clerk, liquor establishment manager, and bartender. (Tr. 1367.) As such, ALJ Parker again found Wydeven was not disabled from his onset date of July 1, 2018 through his date last insured, September 30, 2018. (Tr. 1367.) The Appeals Council again denied review (Tr. 1248–50),

making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. Wydeven now appeals the February 18, 2022 denial of benefits. DISCUSSION 1. Applicable Legal Standards The Commissioner’s final decision will be upheld if the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and supported his decision with substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805, 811 (7th Cir. 2011). Substantial evidence is not conclusive evidence; it is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.” Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 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).

The ALJ is also 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, 736–37 (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 rationales 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)). 2. Application to this Case

Although Wydeven’s administrative record contains nearly a decade of medical treatment, the time relevant to this case is the narrow three-month period between July 1, 2018 (his alleged onset date) and his date last insured, September 30, 2018. Wydeven applied for disability insurance benefits; as such, he must prove that he was disabled by September 30, 2018, known as his “date last insured”—the date when he exhausted his earned quarters of coverage. See Parker v. Astrue, 597 F.3d 920, 924 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 423(c); 20 C.F.R.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wydeven v. O'Malley, (E.D. Wis. 2024).

Wydeven v. O'Malley (Wydeven v. O'Malley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schaaf v. Astrue
602 F.3d 869 (Seventh Circuit, 2010)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.
318 U.S. 80 (Supreme Court, 1943)
Campbell v. Astrue
627 F.3d 299 (Seventh Circuit, 2010)
Jelinek v. Astrue
662 F.3d 805 (Seventh Circuit, 2011)
Shauger v. Astrue
675 F.3d 690 (Seventh Circuit, 2012)
Parker v. Astrue
597 F.3d 920 (Seventh Circuit, 2010)
Eichstadt v. Astrue
534 F.3d 663 (Seventh Circuit, 2008)
Blom v. Barnhart
363 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (E.D. Wisconsin, 2005)
Louquetta O'Connor-Spinner v. Carolyn Colvin
832 F.3d 690 (Seventh Circuit, 2016)
Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill
915 F.3d 486 (Seventh Circuit, 2019)