Opinion
Case No. 99 C 7942
March 21, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) to review the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Rita Hernandez' claim for social security disability insurance benefits. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry # 10). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c). For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Ms. Hernandez filed an application for disability insurance benefits on May 9, 1997 alleging that she became disabled on December 17, 1996 due to pain in the neck shoulders, back, and knees. (R. 92, 102, 104.) Her claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. (R. 55, 61.) On July 14, 1998, Ms. Hernandez appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Robert Asbill. (R. 24-51). Ms. Hernandez testified through an interpreter. (R. 26, 30-42.) Guadalupe Ortega, Ms. Hernandez' daughter, and Dr. William Newman, a medical expert, also testified. (R. 42-51.) On September 16, 1998, ALJ Asbill issued a decision finding that Ms. Hernandez was not disabled because she could perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy. (R. 14-20.) On September 28, 1998, Ms. Hernandez filed a Request for Review. (R. 9.) The Appeals Council denied Ms. Hernandez' request for review, leaving the ALJ's decision as the final decision of the Commissioner. (R. 5-7.)
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Background
Ms. Hernandez was born in Mexico on July 11, 1949 and was forty-nine years old at the time of the hearing. (R. 30.) Ms. Hernandez is approximately 5' tall and weighs 214 pounds. (R. 30.) She has five children. (R. 30.) Ms. Hernandez did not attend school, and cannot read or write in English. (R. 31, 111.) She lives in a second floor apartment with two of her children, who pay the rent. (R. 31.) Ms. Hernandez previously worked as a machine operator and housekeeper. (R. 137.) These jobs required that she lift objects which weighed more than fifty pounds and that she stand for long periods of time. (R. 33, 140, 143.) Ms. Hernandez stopped working on December 17, 1996. (R. 32.)
B. Ms. Hernandez' Testimony
Ms. Hernandez testified that she has pain in various areas of her body. She testified that she cannot grab things with her hands, and when she does they become cramped. (R. 34.) Her wrists are also painful. (Id.) In her lower body, her lower back hurts, and makes it difficult for her to sit down for a long period of time. (Id.) However, when she stands up, her legs hurt, especially her right leg. (Id.' The pain in her leg is centered around the knee area. (Id.
Ms. Hernandez can stand for only fifteen to twenty minutes before she needs to sit down again, and she's not sure how long she can sit without interruption. (R. 38.) She cannot bend over to tie her shoes or to pick something up off of the ground. (Id.) She is able to fully extend her arms above her shoulders, but it causes her a lot of pain. (R. 41.)
At the time of the hearing Ms. Hernandez was also uncomfortable from some surgery she had earlier in 1998 for a stomach infection. (R. 35.) It was Ms. Hernandez' understanding that the doctors left the wound open to allow the infection to heal. (Id.) Ms. Hernandez testified that the wound on her left side has still not healed, which causes her to feel weak and requires her to rest frequently. (R. 36.)
Ms. Hernandez testified that she is unable to do very much on her own. She can do a few household chores, but she cannot sweep or mop. (R. 36.) She can only cook very simple dishes. (Id.) Ms. Hernandez' daughter takes her to the laundromat to wash her clothes. (Id.) Her son and daughter take her to the grocery store and shopping for clothes, and they help her pick out the food at the grocery. (Id.) She is unable to pick up a gallon of milk. (Id.) Ms. Hernandez is only able to button and unbutton her clothes with difficulty, and her daughter helps her dress by helping her get her hands up through the sleeves. (R. 38, 41.) Ms. Hernandez is able to walk a distance of eight blocks. (R. 36.)
Ms. Hernandez testified that she has trouble seeing when she tries to sew. (R. 39.) She does not know if anyone has suggested she get glasses. (Id.) She also has some trouble hearing but has not had her hearing checked by a doctor. (Id.)
Ms. Hernandez has trouble sleeping. (R. 36.) When it is bedtime, she does not feel tired, and she testified that nights go by without her being able to sleep. (ii) She does not watch television, as it makes her nervous; she usually listens to the radio. (Id.) Ms. Hernandez rarely leaves the apartment unless it's to go on a short walk when her children come home. (Id.)
Ms. Hernandez testified as to her emotional health that she is very depressed about her physical condition. (R. 41.) Her fears regarding the pain she experiences cause her to want to die and have episodes of crying. (Id.) She cries because she does not want to feel disabled and would like to return to work. (R. 42.)
C. Guadalupe Ortega's Testimony
Guadalupe Ortega is Ms. Hernandez' daughter, and has lived with her since December 17, 1996. (R. 42.) Ms. Ortega moved in with her mother at the same time that she stopped working due to her health. (Id.) Ms. Ortega testified that her mother is unable to lift heavy objects, and that she cannot open things because of the pain in her hands. (R. 43.) Her mother cannot travel alone because she does not use her cane, and might fall down. (Id.) Ms. Ortega also testified that her mother cries a lot and has trouble sleeping. (Id.)
D. Medical Evidence and Testimony
1. Medical Evidence
In January 1997, Ms. Hernandez complained that she had difficulty walking, and was diagnosed with arthritis in her knee. (R. 46, 226.) In March, 1997, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of her left knee showed minimal suprapatellar joint effusion, minimal degenerative changes, and mild lateral subluxation of the patella. (Id.) An MRI of the right knee showed small joint effusion, minimal degenerative changes and mild lateral subluxation. (Id.)
On April 3, 1997, Ms. Hernandez' treating physician, Dr. Aifredo Rumilla, reported that she was unable to work and required a leave of absence. (R. 160.) Dr. Rumilla referred Ms. Hernandez to Dr. Wahi on or about April 5, 1997. (R. 236.) Dr. Wahi's examination revealed weakness in the right leg, and pain on lumbar motion, and recommended a nerve conduction study and an electromyogram (EMG) of the leg, physical therapy, and nerve blocks. (R. 237-39.) The nerve conduction study did not reveal any definitive evidence of lumbar radiculopathy or peripheral neuropathy. (R. 240.) Over the next month, Ms. Hernandez received physical therapy, and nerve blocks on April 14 and April 22. (R. 240-56.)
On July 22, 1996, Ms. Hernandez received treatment at Norwegian American Hospital for complaints of vomiting, headaches, and a chilling sensation. (R. 161-64.) On August 13, 1996, Ms. Hernandez received treatment at the emergency room at St. Elizabeth's Hospital for abdominal pain, headaches, mild chest pain, and numbness in her hands. (R. 166.) Her discharge instructions recommended bed rest, Motrin for the headaches, and follow-up with Dr. Rumilla. (Id.)
On September 15, 1997, Ms. Hernandez met with Dr. Sanchez, a psychiatrist, for a consultation at the request of the state disability determination agency. (R. 179.) Ms. Hernandez complained of feeling depressed due to her health, helpless, and hopeless. (Id.) She complained that when she is in pain she feels useless and would like to be dead, however, she denied having any hallucinations or delusions. (Id). Dr. Sanchez' evaluation found her thought process to be within normal limits, and her psychomotor within normal limits. (R. 180.) He found her to be alert, and oriented to person, place, and time. (Id.) Her ability to identify politicians was poor, as was her ability to interpret abstract proverbs. (Id.) Ms. Hernandez had good recent and remote memory, however, she had difficulty in repeating five digits backward without a mistake. (Id.) Dr. Sanchez' diagnosis was a "Mood Disorder with Depressive Features by History" which was not substantiated by his interview. (R. 181.) He believed that her depressive disorder began when she was no longer able to work because of her arthritis. (Id.) Dr. Sanchez recommended treatment of medication and supportive therapy. (Id.)
Also on September 15, 1997, Ms. Hernandez saw Dr. Gordon, an intermst, foraconsultative exam at the request of the state agency. (R. 183.) His report notes Ms. Hernandez' complaints of aching wrists and knees and lower back pain and her history of hypertension and mild depression. (Id.) Her left knee x-rays showed mild osteoarthritis, slight joint narrowing and marginal spurs. (R. 188.) The x-rays of her left wrist revealed an old fracture and mild to moderate osteoarthritis. (R. 190.) Dr. Gordon's "clinical impression" was that Ms. Hernandez had severe arthritis, especially in the left wrist, left knee and lumbar spine, and a history of depression. (R. 185.)
On October 10, 1997, Dr. Victoria Dow reviewed the evidence and judged that Ms. Hernandez could perform light work which required occasional climbing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling. (R. 191-98.) Dr. Dow found Ms. Hernandez could occasionally lift twenty pounds, frequently lift ten pounds, stand or walk about six hours in an eight hour workday and sit about six hours in an eight hour workday. (Id.) She found Mr. Hernandez had unlimited ability to push or pull. (Id. On November 8, 1997, Dr. Donald MacLean reviewed the psychiatric evidence, and determined that she had a mood disorder with depressive features, secondary to her physical limitations. (R. 200.) He believed that the limitations of her daily activities appeared to be primarily physical. (Id.)
On August 15, 1996, Ms. Hernandez was admitted to Ravenswood Hospital and was treated for back pain and urinary frequency. (R. 208.) She was diagnosed with acute pyelonephritis, Type A gastritis and hypertension. (Id.)
On March 28, 1997, Ms. Hernandez underwent an MRI examination of both knees. (R. 222.) The findings in the left knee indicated that there was: "Small suprapatellar joint effusion, and minimal degenerative changes in the lateral patello-femoral compartment, with small suprapatellar joint effusion. Mild lateral subluxation of the patella." (Id.) A note on the MRI report indicated the following: "Minimal soft tissue thickening, anterior to the infrapatellar tendon, could represent bursitis. Clinical correlation is suggested." (Id.) The findings in the right knee indicated:
Mild lateral subluxation of the patella, with minimal degenerative changes in the lateral patello-femoral compartment, less severe compared to the left knee. Type H signal, central portion of the lateral meniscus, probably focal degeneration. Soft tissue thickening anterior to the infrapatellar tendon, as described. This probably represents bursitis, but minimal hemorrhage in this area is another possibility. Small joint effusion.
(R. 223.)
In January 1998, Ms. Hernandez saw Dr. Wahi again due to her headaches, lower back pain, and pain in her upper and lower extremities. (R. 258.) The examination indicated that she had a limited range of shoulder motion, but no sensory or motor loss. (Id.) Dr. Wahi recommended pain medication and muscle relaxants, physical therapy for her knees and lower back, nerve blocks, and a nerve conduction study and EMG of the lower extremities. (R. 260.) The nerve conduction study and EMO revealed right sciatic nerve branch tibial and peroneal injury, along with some abnormalities in the left leg. (R. 261.) Ms. Hernandez received physical therapy for her lower back and right knee, and nerve blocks for her back, right leg, and headaches. (R. 262-74.) On February 5, 1998, Ms. Hernandez was comfortable, and Dr. Wahi's notes indicated that he would evaluate her in one month for further treatment if necessary. (R. 275.)
2. Dr. Newman's Testimony
Dr. William Newman is an orthopedic surgeon, and testified at the hearing on July 14, 1998. (R. 44.) Dr. Newman testified that, from his review of Ms. Hernandez' records, she was hypothyroid and obese, which accounted for some of her aches and pain and depression. (R. 45.) He was unable to find any objective evidence to explain her complaint of poly arthralgia, as there was no redness or swelling in her joints and no edema. (R. 46.) He testified that as to her lower back pain, she has mild degeneration of her L5 disk, and a minimal compression of L1. (Id.) Her x-ray of the left wrist showed an old fracture and mild to moderate osteoarthritis. (Id.) The x-ray of the left knee also showed some mild osteoarthritis. (Id.) Dr. Newman had also reviewed Ms. Hernandez' treatment with Dr. Wahi, including results of the EMG's and the nerve blocks she received. (R. 47.)
Dr. Newman testified that Ms. Hernandez had cellulitis of the trunk, where she had an incision and drainage. (R. 47.) He testified that she had an abscess in her abdominal wall, but that it was superficial. (R. 48.) He asked whether she still changed the bandage, to which Ms. Hernandez replied that she did not have the bandage anymore. (R. 47.)
Dr. Newman also determined that there were no physical findings to support Dr. Rumilla's report that Ms. Hernandez had severe arthritis. (R. 48.)
E. The ALJ's Decision
ALJ Asbill found that Ms. Hernandez had severe physical impairments, including osteoarthritis affecting various joints, hypertension, a thyroid condition, and non-severe depression. (R. 17.) He found that she had no condition, considered both alone or in combination, that meets or equals in severity any section of the medical listing of impairments. (Id.)
His assessment of Ms. Hernandez' residual functional capacity took into account the objective medical evidence and Ms. Hernandez' reported symptoms to the extent he found them to be credible. (Id.) He found that she was able to perform a full range of work at the light level. (R. 18.) In making this determination, he found Ms. Hernandez' testimony to be generally credible, but somewhat out of proportion to the objective medical evidence of her impairments. (Id.) He found that while she testified to significant limitations in her ability to stand and walk, he was finding that she could stand and walk for six hours in an eight hour day. (Id.) He also found that Ms. Hernandez could lift twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently, and that she could do occasional climbing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling. (Id.) In reaching his assessment, the ALJ relied on the opinion of the State Agency physician as set forth in the physical residual functional capacity assessment, which he believed to be most consistent with the x-ray findings showing only mild degenerative changes in her joints. (Id.) The ALJ also noted that these findings were consistent with the conservative treatment Ms. Hernandez received. (Id.)
As to Ms. Hernandez' depression, the ALJ adopted the opinion of the State Agency psychologist who found that it was not a severe impairment. (R. 18.) The ALJ found that Ms. Hernandez had no functional limitations from her depression based upon the Psychiatric Review Technique Form ("PRTF"). (Id.) ALJ Asbill noted that Ms. Hernandez' agreed that she feels depressed due to her physical condition and her inability to work. (Id.)
The ALJ found that Ms. Hernandez was unable to return to her past relevant work as a machine operator and housekeeper, which both required prolonged standing and walking and frequent lifting of over fifty pounds. (R. 18.) The ALJ found that Ms. Hernandez is a younger individual, unable to speak English, illiterate, and that her past relevant work was unskilled. (Id.) Based upon those findings and his finding that she was able to perform a full range of work at the light level, the ALJ held that Medical Vocational Rule 202.16 directed a finding of "not disabled." (Id.)
IV. DISCUSSION
Under the Social Security Act, a person is disabled if she has an "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of a 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 twelve months." 42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(I)(a). In order to determine whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ considers the following five questions in order:
1. Is the claimant presently unemployed?
2. Is the claimant's impairment severe?
3. Does the impairment meet or medically equal one of a list of specific impairments enumerated in the regulations?
4. Is the claimant unable to perform her former occupation?
5. Is the claimant unable to perform any other work?
20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a)-(i). An affirmative answer at either step 3 or step 5 leads to a finding that the claimant is disabled. Young v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 957 F.2d 386, 389 (7th Cir. 1992). A negative answer at any step, other than at step 3, precludes a finding of disability. Id. The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps 1-4. Id. Once the claimant shows an inability to perform past work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show ability to engage in other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Id.
Judicial review of the ALJ's decision is limited to determining whether the ALl's findings are supported by substantial evidence or based upon a legal error. See Stevenson v. Chater, 105 F.3d 1151, 1153 (7th Cir. 1997). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). This Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner by reevaluating facts, reweighing evidence, resolving conflicts in evidence, or deciding questions of credibility. Estok v. Apfel, 152 F.3d 636, 638 (7th Cir. 1998).
In the present case, Ms. Hernandez raises one main argument in support of her appeal: that the ALJ's finding that Ms. Hernandez' does not have a severe mental impairment is not supported by substantial evidence. Section 405(g) provides in relevant part that "[t]he findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). Substantial evidence means "`more than a mere scintilla'" of proof, instead requiring "`such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Ehrhart v. Secretary of Health Human Services, 969 F.2d 534, 538 (7th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted).
Ms. Hernandez is not challenging any of the ALJ's findings regarding her physical condition.
ALJ Asbill's decision regarding the existence of a severe mental impairment adopted the findings in the PRTF that Ms. Hernandez' feelings of depression do not substantially limit her activities:
With respect to the claimant's depression, I have adopted the opinion of the State Agency psychologist found in Exhibit 7F that this is not a severe impairment. As the attached Psychiatric Review Technique Form sets forth I find that the claimant has no functional limitations as a result of her depression. The claimant has acknowledged that she feels depressed due to her physical condition and her inability to work.
(R. 18.) Ms. Hernandez asserts that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence because: 1) the decision does not take into account the medical opinions of her treating physicians and does not consider her own testimony at the administrative hearing; 2) the ALJ neglected to give sufficient weight to the opinions of the physicians who treated Ms. Hernandez; and 3) the ALJ's failure to consider conflicting evidence demonstrates that his decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
1. The ALJ's Consideration of Ms. Hernandez' Testimony and the Medical Opinions of Her Treating Physicians
Ms. Hernandez first argues that the ALJ's decision did not properly consider the medical opinions of Doctors Sanchez, Rumilla, Gordon, and Neuman and their diagnoses of Ms. Hernandez' mental condition. Ms. Hernandez also asserts that the ALJ's opinion makes no mention of Ms. Hernandez' own testimony or the testimony of her daughter. (Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. at 5.) Ms. Hernandez argues that the ALJ's analysis "does not satisfy the guidelines set forth in SSR 96-8p; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 or 404.1521." (Id.) She claims that the ALJ's adoption of the PRTF does not provide substantial evidence in support of his conclusion that Ms. Hernandez' mental impairment is not severe. (Id.)
Social Security Ruling ("S.S.R.") § 96-8p "states the Social Security Administrations' policies and policy interpretations regarding the assessment of residual functional capacity (an individual's ability to perform sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis) in initial claims for disability benefits . . . ." In this case, as to Ms. Hernandez' mental impairments, the ALJ never reached the issue of her residual functional capacity since he found that she had no severe impairment. Therefore, S.S.R. § 96-8p is not applicable to the Court's analysis of the ALJ's assessment of the severity of Ms. Hernandez' mental impairment.
An ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence but must only minimally articulate his reasoning. Diaz v. Chater, 55 F.3d 300, 307-08 (7th Cir. 1995). An ALJ's failure to consider an entire line of evidence falls below the minimal level of articulation required. Id. at 307 (citing Herron v. Shalala, 19 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 1994)). In the present case, the ALJ sufficiently articulated his assessment of the evidence and specifically considered and weighed the favorable evidence. Ms. Hernandez' assertion that the ALJ's decision reflects little or no analysis of the medical opinions from her treating physicians is without any basis in fact. ALJ Asbill summarized Ms. Hernandez' treatment by both doctors Sanchez and Rumilla. The ALJ described in his opinion Ms. Hernandez' complaints to Dr. Sanchez of depression, sleeplessness, poor memory and feelings of hopelessness, and the doctor's opinion that Ms. Hernandez had a mood disorder with depressive features. (R. 16.) The ALJ also observed Dr. Sanchez' opinion that her symptoms could be helped by appropriate medication and therapy. (Id.) ALJ Asbill further noted Dr. Rumilla's prescription of Elavil for Ms. Hernandez' depression and anxiety. (R. 17.) He additionally described in his opinion Ms. Hernandez' testimony regarding her feelings of depression, her inability to sleep, and her fits of crying. (R. 15-16.) The ALJ's summary of Ms. Hernandez' medical history and treatments suggests that he studied and weighed that evidence when assessing the severity of her depression even though he did not specifically mention this history in the portion of the decision analyzing her complaints of depression. (R. 19.)
Ms. Hernandez also argues that the diagnoses of Doctors Gordon and Newman were omitted from the ALJ's findings. While it is true that the ALJ does not mention either of these two doctors in conjunction with his description of the psychological testimony, neither of these doctors actually had a substantiated opinion regarding Ms. Hernandez' mental health. Dr. Gordon's records only mention in passing that she has a medical history of depression in the diagnosis, which then indicates that it is stable. (R. 183-85.) Dr. Newman testified at the hearing, and the Court can find only one reference to Ms. Hernandez' depression, where Dr. Newman mentions that Ms. Hernandez' hypothyroidism and obesity might have contributed to her depression. (R. 45.) The Court does not believe that either of these two doctor's finding substantially contributed further information regarding Ms. Hernandez' mental health beyond what the other doctors had already described in their reports. While both of these doctors did provide relevant information regarding Ms. Hernandez' physical condition, Ms. Hernandez is only challenging the ALJ's findings as to her mental impairment.
2. The Weight Accorded to the Opinions of Ms. Hernandez' Treating Physicians
Ms. Hernandez next maintains that the ALJ failed to grant sufficient weight to the reports of the physicians who treated her, and instead credited the PRTF which was completed by Dr. MacLean, a doctor who never actually examined Ms. Hernandez. A treating physician's opinion will be given controlling weight if it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(2); S.S.R. 96-2p ("Giving Controlling Weight to Treating Source Medical Opinions."). If a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ considers several factors in determining the weight to give the opinion, including: the length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and whether the opinion was from a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1 527(d)(2)-(5).
In this case there does not appear to be a marked inconsistency between the PRTF relied upon by the ALJ and the reports of the treating physicians, Dr. Sanchez and Dr. Rumilla. In the PRTF, Dr. MacLean found that there was evidence of a mood disorder, (R. 202). but that it did not result in functional limitations in any of the listed categories. His diagnosis was a "mood disorder with depressive features, secondary to physical limitations." (R. 200.) He further noted that "[l]imitations of daily activities appear to be primarily physical." (Id.) Dr. Rumilla's prescription of Elavil, and Dr. Sanchez' indication that Ms. Hernandez' symptoms "may be helped with appropriate medication and supportive therapy" are not at odds with the findings in the PRTF. The fact that Dr. MacLean never heard the testimony of Ms. Hernandez and that the PRTF makes no specific reference to the other doctors' findings does not mean that it is inconsistent with those findings.
categories of functional limitations are: I) Restriction of Activities of Daily Living; 2) Difficulties in Maintaining Social Functioning; 3) Deficiencies of Concentration, Persistence or Pace Resulting in Failure to Complete Tasks in a Timely Manner (in work settings or elsewhere); and 4) Episodes of Deterioration or Decompensation in Work or Work-Like Settings Which Cause the Individual to Withdraw from that Situation or to Experience Exacerbation of Signs and Symptoms (which may Include Deterioration of Adaptive Behaviors). (R. 206.)
Ms. Hernandez contends that Dr. Sanchez' findings that therapy and medication could help her depressive symptoms "confirms that plaintiff has a `severe impairment,'" (Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. at 5), however, she provides no authority for this statement. A "severe impairment" is defined as one that significantly limits the claimant's "ability to do basic work activities," 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521 (a), 416.921(a), that is, "the abilities and aptitudes necessary to do most jobs." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521 (b), 416.921(b). The fact that Ms. Hernandez' symptoms may be amehorated by drugs and/or therapy does not mandate a finding that her impairment is severe.
3. There was Substantial Evidence to Support the ALJ's Conclusions
Ms. Hernandez' ultimately argues that the ALJ's failure to consider all of the evidence requires this Court to find that his decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Ms. Hernandez cites to Behymer v. Apfel, 45 F. Supp.2d 654 (N.D. Ind. 1999), in support of her claim that "[a] disregard for [lay testimony] violates the Commissioner's regulations about observation by non medical sources as to how an impairment affects a claimant's ability to work." (Pl's Mot. Summ. J. at 6.) Ms. Hernandez also cites to Bell v. Apfel, 1999 WL 1045204 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 1999), for the proposition that because the ALJ did not consider "observations of the evaluating physicians, and plaintiff's testimony" his findings are not supported by substantial evidence.
After reviewing the entire administrative record, this Court finds substantial support for ALJ Asbill's conclusion that Ms. Hernandez' mental condition created, at most, slight restrictions on her ability to perform basic work activities. This Court finds that the majority of Ms. Hernandez' limitations arose primarily from her physical and not her mental impairments. Ms. Hernandez testified that she is depressed, cries often, and has difficulty sleeping, and that she mostly feels depressed about her physical condition and her inability to work. Dr. Sanchez' evaluation found Ms. Hernandez' thought processes and her psychomotor skills to be within normal limits. (R. 180.) He found her to be alert, and oriented to person, place, and time, and that she had a good recent and remote memory. (Id.) He diagnosed her with a "Mood Disorder with Depressive Features by History," however, he noted that this diagnosis was not substantiated by his interview. (R. 181.) Dr. MacLean found that Ms. Hernandez' mood disorder was secondary to her physical limitations, and that the limitations on her daily activities appeared to be primarily physical. (R. 200.)
Based upon this evidence, the ALJ found that Ms. Hernandez could not satisfy question two of the five question inquiry derived from 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a)-(f). As this Court has previously noted, the ALJ did include Ms. Hernandez' testimony in his findings, as well, as the reports of both Dr. Rumilla and Dr. Sanchez. This Court does not consider the doctor's medical findings or Ms. Hernandez' testimony to be inconsistent with the findings in the PRTF. Even if the evidence was inconsistent, "[w]here conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether the claimant is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the [Commissioner] (or on the [Commissioner's] designate, the ALJ." Behymer, 45 F. Supp.2d at 661 (citing Walker v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 635, 640 (7th Cir. 1987)). In this case, the ALJ reasonably relied upon the PRTF in making his determination, and none of the other evidence in the record conflicts with his findings. The Court finds that the sum of this evidence sufficiently supports the ALJs finding that Ms. Hernandez' mental impairment was not severe.
Question two asks if the claimant's impairment is severe. See. supra, 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a)-(f).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against the Plaintiff in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.