# Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security

> District Court, C.D. Illinois · June 12, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10137184

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** June 12, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10137184

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that in reviewing an ALJ’s decision, the court cannot reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts in the record, decide questions of credibility, or otherwise substitute its own judgment for that of the Commissioner
- stating that an ALJ is required to provide an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and his conclusions
- explaining “patently wrong” means “the decision lacks any explanation or support”

## Opinion text

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION

PATRICK J.W.,
Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:22-cv-04047-JEH

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

Order
Now before the Court is the Plaintiff Patrick J.W.’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 14), the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (Doc.
17), and the Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 19).1 For the reasons stated herein, the Court
DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS the
Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Affirmance.2
I
Patrick J.W. filed an application for supplemental security income (SSI) on
October 2, 2019, alleging disability beginning on May 14, 1994. His SSI claim was
denied initially on March 4, 2020 and upon reconsideration on March 3, 2021.
Patrick filed a request for hearing concerning his application which was held on
July 8, 2021 before the Honorable John M. Wood (ALJ). At the hearing, Patrick
was represented by an attorney, and Patrick and a vocational expert (VE) testified.
Following the hearing, Patrick’s claim was denied on July 22, 2021. His request

1 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Docs. 10, 11).
2 References to the pages within the Administrative Record will be identified by AR [page number]. The Administrative Record
appears at (Doc. 7) on the docket.
for review by the Appeals Council was denied on January 6, 2022, making the
ALJ’s Decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Patrick timely filed the
instant civil action seeking review of the ALJ’s Decision on March 12, 2022.
II
Patrick argues the ALJ committed the following errors: 1) the ALJ’s
conclusion Patrick could perform work which required him to sit for four hours
and stand for four hours of an eight-hour work day without ever needing to lie
down flat was reliant on his “patently wrong” dismissal of Patrick’s credibility
with regard to his need to lie down frequently due to hip/lower back pain and
was, resultantly, unsupported by substantial evidence or the relevant legal
standards; and 2) the ALJ committed reversible error requiring an order for a
finding of disability and/or remand to the agency in concluding the ability to
perform a total of 35,600 jobs in the entire United States constituted the ability to
perform a “significant” number of jobs in the national economy at Step Five of the
Decision.
III
The Court’s function on review is not to try the case de novo or to supplant
the ALJ’s findings with the Court’s own assessment of the evidence. See Schmidt
v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 970, 972 (7th Cir. 2000); Pugh v. Bowen, 870 F.2d 1271 (7th Cir.
1989). Indeed, “[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).
Although great deference is afforded to the determination made by the ALJ, the
Court does not “merely rubber stamp the ALJ’s decision.” Scott v. Barnhart, 297
F.3d 589, 593 (7th Cir. 2002). The Court’s function is to determine whether the
ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper
legal standards were applied. Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79, 82 (7th Cir. 1986).
Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support the decision. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.
389, 390 (1971); Henderson v. Apfel, 179 F.3d 507, 512 (7th Cir. 1999).
In order to qualify for disability insurance benefits, an individual must show
that his inability to work is medical in nature and that he is totally disabled.
Economic conditions, personal factors, financial considerations, and attitudes of
the employer are irrelevant in determining whether a plaintiff is eligible for
disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.966. The establishment of disability under the Act is
a two-step process.
First, the plaintiff must be suffering from a medically determinable physical
or mental impairment, or combination of impairments, 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 12 months. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). Second, there must
be a factual determination that the impairment renders the plaintiff unable to
engage in any substantial gainful employment. McNeil v. Califano, 614 F.2d 142,
143 (7th Cir. 1980). The factual determination is made by using a five-step test.
See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. In the following order, the ALJ must evaluate whether the
claimant:
1) is performing substantial gainful activity;

2) suffers from an impairment that is severe and meets a
durational requirement, or suffers from a combination of
impairments that is severe and meets the durational
requirement;

3) suffers from an impairment which meets or equals any
impairment listed in the appendix and which meets the
duration requirement;

4) is unable to perform her past relevant work which includes an
assessment of the claimant’s residual functional capacity; and
5) is unable to perform any other work existing in significant
numbers in the national economy.

Id. An affirmative answer at Steps Three or Five leads to a finding that the plaintiff
is disabled. Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 352 (7th Cir. 2005).
The plaintiff has the burdens of production and persuasion on Steps One
through Four. Id. However, once the plaintiff shows an inability to perform past
work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show ability to engage in some
other type of substantial gainful employment. Weatherbee v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 565,
569 (7th Cir. 2011).
In the instant case, Patrick claims error on the ALJ’s part at Steps Four and
Five.
A
At Step One, the ALJ determined Patrick had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since October 2, 2019, the application date. AR 15. At Step Two,
the ALJ determined Patrick had the following severe impairments: dysfunction of
joints (Perthes disease3); personality disorder; and anxiety. Id. At Step Three, the
ALJ determined Patrick did not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed
impairments. Id. At Step Four, the ALJ made the following residual functional
capacity (RFC) finding:
[T]he claimant has the [RFC] to perform sedentary work as defined in
20 CFR 416.967(a) except he can never climb ladders, ropes or
scaffolds, and can perform other postural activities occasionally. He
must avoid environmental hazards such as unprotected heights and
dangerous machinery. He can perform no pushing/pulling with

3 “Chronic inflammation of the head of the femur in children, resulting in atrophy and shortening of the neck of the femur with a
wide flat head.” Taber’s Online, https://www.tabers.com/tabersonline/view/Tabers-Dictionary/756864/all/osteochondritis#1
(last visited May 18, 2023); see also OrthoInfo, https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/diseases--conditions/perthes-disease (last visited May
18, 2023) (“Perthes disease is a rare childhood condition that affects the hip. It occurs when the blood supply to the rounded head of
the femur (thighbone) is temporarily disrupted. Without an adequate blood supply, the bone cells die, a process called avascular
necrosis”).
lower extremities. The claimant must avoid concentrated exposure to
extreme temperatures, humidity, and vibrations. The claimant needs
to have the option to alternate periodically equally between sitting
and standing at no more than 30 minute intervals while resuming
being on task within 2 minutes of each positional change. His [sic] is
limited to no interaction with the public, and occasional interaction
with coworkers and supervisors.

AR 17. The ALJ found Patrick had no past relevant work. AR 23. At Step Five,
the ALJ determined that, considering Patrick’s age, education, work experience,
and RFC, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national
economy that Patrick could perform. AR 24. The ALJ concluded that Patrick had
not been under a disability since October 2, 2019, the date his application was filed.
AR 25.
B
Patrick first argues that the ALJ, in implicitly evaluating Patrick’s credibility
as it related to his need to lie down at some point throughout an eight-hour work
day secondary to alleged debilitating pain, failed to consider factors and objective
evidence which clearly weighed in Patrick’s favor and gave reasons which the
Seventh Circuit has deemed “patently wrong.” Patrick contends the ALJ jumped
to unsupported conclusions. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ reasonably
tailored Patrick’s work restrictions to the evidence and provided several valid
reasons for not fully crediting his subjective allegations. Patrick alleged disability
due to Legg-Perthes disease (Perthes disease) with constant hip pain, reported he
had a lot of pain and walked with a limp, and reported his hip popped out of the
right joint. In January 2020, he stated that he had not seen a medical doctor since
he was diagnosed with bilateral Perthes disease in the 1980s.
At the hearing, Patrick’s attorney asked him to imagine a job that allowed
Patrick to sit or stand as needed at the workstation and further asked him if he
could, with that allowance, work 40 hours a week. AR 43. Patrick responded there
was “no way,” he experienced “too much pain,” and the pain never went away.
Id. Patrick’s attorney next asked him what he did to reduce his pain, and Patrick
testified, “The best thing I can do is lay flat on my back. That’s the least amount
of pain I have. I still have pain, but that’s the least amount of pain I’m going to
have.” AR 44. He further testified that he spent “most” of his day laying on his
back. Id. Patrick’s attorney later elicited from the VE that if a person needed to
lay down flat at any point during the working day, not during a break, that would
be work preclusive. AR 56.
SSR 16-3p provides that all the evidence, including objective medical
evidence, is to be considered in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting
effects of an individual’s symptoms and also the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §
416.929(c)(3) are to be considered including: the claimant’s daily activities; the
location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms;
precipitating and aggravating factors; medications and their side effects; non-
medication treatments; any other measures used to relieve pain or other
symptoms; and any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations
and restrictions due to pain and other symptoms. SSR 16-3p, at *7-8. Patrick
identifies three particular instances in the Decision he believes illustrate the ALJ
erred in failing to credit his testimony that he needed to lie down at some point
throughout an eight-hour work day.
Patrick argues the ALJ wrongfully concluded he failed to demonstrate
significantly reduced range of motion – a clinical finding SSA regulations
explicitly mention as supporting an allegation of intense and debilitating pain. See
SSR 16-3p, at *5 (“The intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of many
symptoms can be clinically observed and recorded in the medical evidence.
Examples such as reduced joint motion . . . sensory deficit, and motor disruption
illustrate findings that may result from, or be associated with, the symptom of
pain”). In his Decision, the ALJ considered that Patrick’s range of motion of the
cervical and lumbar spine was not limited, but there was tenderness in his right
hip and active range of motion of both hips was limited at his internal medicine
consultative exam in January 2020. Patrick’s range of motion was normal, though
his gait was altered in May 2020. He had tenderness over the right greater
trochanter4 and reduced range of motion in September 2020. The ALJ also recited
treatment notes from October 2020 at which time exam revealed Patrick’s right hip
was “severely limited in range of motion, but his left hip was normal” and from
November 2020 at which time Patrick again objectively had “severely limited
range of motion of the right hip, though his left hip was normal.” AR 20.
While the ALJ did conclude “the medical record does not demonstrate
clearly that [Patrick] has significantly limited range of motion,” that statement was
just part of a paragraph which continued that the medical record also did not
demonstrate “muscle atrophy, motor weakness, difficulty ambulating, or reflex
abnormalities that are associated with intense and disabling pain.” AR 21.
Continuing, the ALJ reasoned:
The record shows limited right hip range of motion and antalgic gait,
however, the other deficits noted were minimal. Strength was
consistently 5/5, and he showed no deficits in reflexes or sensation.
The claimant does not use (nor has a provider recommended) an
assistive device.

Id. The ALJ’s stated rationale, considered as a whole, as to the objective medical
evidence shows that he did not dismiss evidence of Patrick’s “severely limited
range of motion of the right hip” out of hand. The ALJ explained his reasons for

4 “A thick process at the superior end of the femur on the lateral aspect, projecting upward to the union of the neck and shaft.”
Taber’s Online, https://www.tabers.com/tabersonline/view/Tabers-Dictionary/744015/all/trochanter#3 (last visited May 24,
2023).
why he found Patrick’s impairments could be anticipated to produce a certain
amount of pain and limitation, but not the amount of pain and limitation Patrick
alleged. The ALJ further provided support for those reasons. Compare Murphy v.
Colvin, 759 F.3d 811, 815-16 (7th Cir. 2014) (explaining “patently wrong” means
“the decision lacks any explanation or support”). As the Commissioner points out,
the ALJ cited several treatment notes which revealed normal findings aside from
the right hip and results of Patrick’s consultative examination which revealed the
ability to get on and off the exam table without difficulty; walk greater than 50 feet
without support; heel, toe, and tandem walk; and squat without difficulty and
which included a negative straight leg raise test. The ALJ also discussed that
records indicated Patrick was in no apparent or acute distress. It is clear to the
Court that Patrick’s “minimal” other noted deficits, normal exam findings, and
absent additional indications of intense and disabling pain informed the ALJ’s
ultimate conclusion that the medical record did not indicate Patrick would be
unable to perform at the sedentary exertional level with the additional limitations
he included in the RFC finding. In other words, the ALJ did not jump to an
unsupported conclusion with regard to the objective medical evidence.
Next, Patrick argues that the ALJ did not sufficiently inquire into Patrick’s
reasons for not seeking treatment beyond the treatment the ALJ described as
“rather conservative.” AR 21. Thus, Patrick says the ALJ’s implication he was not
pursuing additional medical treatment was a patently wrong reason to dismiss his
credibility. The Commissioner counters with a recitation of record evidence the
ALJ considered in his Decision before reaching his conclusion that Patrick’s
treatment was “conservative.” The Commissioner argues the ALJ appropriately
characterized Patrick’s treatment as conservative, acknowledged evidence of
Patrick’s reasons for not seeking additional treatment, and considered the
effectiveness of Patrick’s treatment.
SSR 16-3p provides in relevant part that “if the frequency or extent of the
treatment sought by an individual is not comparable with the degree of the
individual's subjective complaints . . . we may find the alleged intensity and
persistence of an individual's symptoms are inconsistent with the overall evidence
of record.” SSR 16-3p, at *9. The ALJ thus reasonably considered the treatment
evidence as a whole and observed that the extent and nature of it did not support
Patrick’s allegations of the level of pain he experienced due to Perthes disease. The
extent and nature of Patrick’s treatment was directly addressed in the Decision
where the ALJ discussed that: Patrick had not seen a medical doctor since he was
diagnosed with Perthes disease in the 1980s; he was taking no pain medications
and had not been to an orthopedic surgeon or pain clinic when he established care
with a family nurse practitioner in May 2020; he was prescribed Meloxicam; and
he agreed to a right hip steroid injection in September 2020. The ALJ further
detailed that Patrick stated the Meloxicam helped his symptoms, but he had not
taken it for two weeks because he wanted to know Dr. Raheemuddin M. Nazeer’s,
a rheumatologist, thoughts at his appointment in October 2020. In November
2020, Dr. Nazeer told him to try extended release Tylenol. Patrick also indicated
in November 2020 that Meloxicam did help, but he would start having pain again
in the evening. Patrick opted to follow up with his primary care provider rather
than see Dr. Nazeer in six months after his November 2020 appointment. Later,
the ALJ summarized in support of his finding of “conservative” treatment that
Patrick opted to continue with his primary care provider rather than a
rheumatologist, he had not seen a pain specialist, he did not utilize “any of the
strong narcotic pain medication often prescribed for intense and disabling pain,”
and he had not been referred for physical therapy. AR 21. The ALJ’s conservative
treatment finding thus logically followed from the breadth of evidence he
discussed. See Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 638 (7th Cir. 2013) (stating that an ALJ
is required to provide an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and his
conclusions).
Moreover, there was no shortcoming in the ALJ’s consideration of the
reasons Patrick did not seek or receive additional treatment. See SSR 16-3p, at *9
(“We will not find an individual's symptoms inconsistent with the evidence in the
record on this basis without considering possible reasons he or she may not
comply with treatment or seek treatment consistent with the degree of his or her
complaints”). The ALJ explicitly acknowledged “the claimant’s assertion that a
lack of insurance has prevented him from seeking care.” AR 21. It was for the
ALJ, not the Court, to weigh whether that reason was sufficient to overcome the
treatment that did occur. See Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1001 (7th Cir. 2004)
(explaining that in reviewing an ALJ’s decision, the court cannot reweigh
evidence, resolve conflicts in the record, decide questions of credibility, or
otherwise substitute its own judgment for that of the Commissioner). Patrick does
not point to anywhere in the medical record where he was offered a particular
treatment but could not pursue it due to lack of insurance. While Patrick states
otherwise, the ALJ also explicitly considered that Dr. Shawn Wynn, an orthopedist
and Patrick’s would-be surgeon, informed Patrick the definitive treatment would
be total hip arthroplasty though Patrick would likely continue to have back
symptoms. AR 19. Again, it was for the ALJ to weigh whether the likelihood of
continuing back symptoms were reason enough to overcome Patrick’s allegations
of the degree of pain he experienced during the period under consideration. As
for Patrick’s assertion that the ALJ erred by not even asking Patrick why he did
not seek the use of narcotic pain medication, Patrick did not provide any reasons
for the ALJ to consider. See Deborah M. v. Saul, 994 F.3d 785, 790 (7th Cir. 2021)
(“Social Security Rule 16-3p did not require the ALJ to ask [the claimant] about her
failure to seek treatment”). Given that it was Patrick’s burden to supply evidence
in support of his claim of disability, the reasons Patrick now presents on appeal
were more aptly for the ALJ to be presented with in the first instance. See Scheck
v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697, 702 (7th Cir. 2004) (It is axiomatic that the claimant bears
the burden of supplying adequate records and evidence to prove their claim of
disability”).
Lastly, Patrick argues the ALJ’s assessment of his subjective allegations of
pain due to Perthes disease was patently wrong, “perhaps most significantly,”
because the ALJ failed to specifically mention his statement that he had to lie flat
on his back in order to get any sort of pain relief and that he spent most of his days
in that very position. Plf’s MSJ (Doc. 15 at pg. 16). Per Patrick, the ALJ’s failure to
expressly consider his statement, an activity SSR 16-3p explicitly names as
something which (again, per Patrick) weighs toward a finding that Patrick’s
subjective allegations were entirely consistent with the record evidence, requires
reversal and remand.
Indeed, the ALJ did not include in his recitation of Patrick’s statements the
single statement Patrick made at the hearing that the “best thing I can do is lay flat
on my back.” AR 44. And, indeed, SSR 16-3p tasks an ALJ with considering “[a]ny
measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or
other symptoms (e.g. lying flat on his or her back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes
every hour, or sleeping on a board)[.]” SSR 16-3p, at *8. Of course, SSR 16-3p does
not state that if a claimant says he lays flat on his back to relieve pain, then an ALJ
must necessarily find a claimant’s pain does in fact render him disabled. Measures
a claimant uses is just one factor among many an ALJ is tasked with considering
to ensure a proper subjective symptom assessment. Moreover, an ALJ need not
mention every piece of evidence. Roddy, 705 F.3d at 638; see also Shideler v. Astrue,
688 F.3d 306, 312 (7th Cir. 2012) (explaining the ALJ’s decision was not perfect but
also noting that “an ALJ’s credibility findings need not specify which statements
were not credible”). As the Seventh Circuit put it in Simila v. Astrue, so too here:
“Though the ALJ’s credibility determination was not flawless, it was far from
‘patently wrong.’” 573 F.3d 503, 517 (7th Cir. 2009). Here, in conformity with 20
C.F.R. § 416.929, the ALJ juxtaposed Patrick’s statements regarding his symptoms,
including that his pain was relieved with constant adjustment, with the objective
medical evidence and Patrick’s course of treatment. The ALJ adequately traced
the path of his reasoning in those two regards (objective medical evidence and
treatment as analyzed supra), and stated succinctly, “Notably, the [RFC] herein
provides for the claimant’s need to change positions, which is consistent with his
testimony and reports to treatment providers.” AR 23.5
C
Patrick last argues that the ALJ’s finding at Step Five that Patrick could
perform a “significant” number of jobs should be rejected as not consistent with
the conclusions of neighboring courts within this circuit, agency regulations, or
any plain meaning of the term “significant.” He also contends that while the
questions that necessarily remain could be hashed out with additional vocational
testimony if the Court were to remand this case, his ability to perform .02% of jobs
in the national economy does not constitute an ability to perform a “significant”
number of jobs which the Court maintains the discretion and authority to conclude
as much, and so the Court should order the Social Security Administration to
award him disability benefits. The Commissioner refers back to Patrick’s own
concession that issues remain which could be sorted out with additional VE
testimony upon remand such that the extraordinary remedy of awarding benefits
is “plainly unwarranted” here. Dft’s MSA (Doc. 17-1 at pg. 16). The Commissioner

5 As the Commissioner cites, Patrick stated in his December 2019 Function Report – Adult that, “I have pain while sitting [sic]
sometimes I can adjust the way I’m sitting [sic] sometimes I need to stand. There is always discomfort though.” AR 235. During
the hearing, Patrick testified that to relieve the pain from sitting after 20 minutes to an hour, “Usually, I stand up. Like I’ll stand up
and maybe walk around a little bit, but then the problem is that once I sit back down, it happens quicker the next time.” AR 43.
otherwise relies upon Seventh Circuit case law which, she says, demonstrates that
35,600 national jobs clears the significance threshold, whereas Patrick cites a string
of unpublished, non-precedential district court decisions, all of which are outdated
and factually distinguishable. In reply, Patrick insists that, as it was the ALJ’s
burden at Step Five, the development as to regional numbers was the
responsibility of the ALJ, and the Commissioner’s cited cases are the “fruits of a
poisonous tree.” Plf’s Resp. (Doc. 19 at pg. 9).
At the hearing, the VE testified that an individual with Patrick’s RFC could
perform the following jobs: document specialist; tube operator; sorter; and
polisher. The VE reduced the numbers for each job, in light of the sit/stand option,
as follows: 20,000 document specialist jobs nationally; 4,600 tube operator jobs
nationally; 1,500 sorter jobs nationally; and 1,500 polisher jobs nationally. The VE
testified further that there were an additional 8,000 jobs nationally that would be
consistent with the hypothetical requiring a sit/stand option. In his Decision, the
ALJ determined that jobs existed “in significant numbers in the national economy
that claimant can perform.” AR 24.
20 C.F.R. § 416.966 provides, in relevant part, “We consider that work exists
in the national economy when it exists in significant numbers either in the region
where you live or in several other regions of the country.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.966(a).
Section 416.966 continues, “Isolated jobs that exist in very limited numbers in
relatively few locations outside of the region where you live are not considered
work which exists in the national economy. We will not deny you disability
benefits on the basis of the existence of these kinds of jobs.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.966(b).
Using a federal district court in Indiana’s formula set forth in a 2020 case, Patrick
says that if only 35,600 jobs that he could perform exist in all of the United States,
then there are about 1,359 jobs in the entire state of Illinois which an individual
with his RFC could perform.
Though Patrick has made a worthy argument, the Court finds it cannot go
so far as to accept his argument in order to direct an award of benefits or even to
remand for the VE to expound upon regional numbers for the identified jobs. First,
just seven months ago, the Seventh Circuit in Milhem v. Kijakazi stated very clearly,
“It is within the ALJ’s discretion to determine whether jobs exist only in very
limited numbers . . . This determination does not depend upon the establishment
of a standard for significance.” 52 F.4th 688, 695 (7th Cir. 2022). Reiterating the
meaning of “substantial evidence,” the Milhem court reasoned:
The vocational expert provided the ALJ with plenty of evidence that
Milhem could perform 89,000 jobs. The ALJ grounded her conclusion
that the number of jobs mentioned was “significant” on her
consideration of Milhem’s “age, education, work experience, and
residual functional capacity” and that Milhem was “capable of
making a successful adjustment to other work that exists” in the
economy. The ALJ’s hypotheticals to the vocational expert revealed
that she weighed the testimony presented and determined that
Milhem could at least perform sedentary work. The ALJ further
assessed the tolerance for absences in these positions, the
requirements for being on task in the workplace, and the frequency of
breaks during the workday, all reflecting the ALJ's conclusions about
Milhem’s capacity to perform work.

Id. at 696. The Milhem court concluded that on the record before it, a reasonable
person would accept 89,000 jobs in the national economy as being a significant
number. Id. The Milhem court also stated, “Our circuit’s case law does not provide
a clear baseline for how many jobs are needed.” Id. Finally, it observed that its
ruling was “in accord with the numbers of national jobs held to be significant by
other circuits.” Id. at 697.
Of consequence here is the fact that the 35,600 jobs nationally in this case is
within the range of national job numbers appearing in the circuit court cases cited
in Milhem. See id. (citing a Sixth Circuit case wherein 32,000 national jobs were
available, a Ninth Circuit case wherein 25,000 national jobs were available, and
two Eighth Circuit cases wherein 10,000 national jobs and 32,000 national jobs
were available). Also of note is the fact that since Milhem, district courts
throughout the Seventh Circuit have found, pursuant to reasoning in that case,
that national job numbers comparable to those in this case constituted a significant
number. See, e.g., Sara B. v. Kijakazi, No. 1:22-cv-52, 2023 WL 2013323, at *4 (N.D.
Ind. Feb. 15, 2023) (41,000 jobs in the national economy); Harry v. Kijakazi, No. 22-
cv-0186, 2022 WL17584174, at *5 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2022) (29,800 jobs in the
national economy); and Teresa M. v. Kijakazi, No. 20 C 859, 2022 WL 17406596, at *8
(N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2022) (28,000 jobs in the national economy). As in Milhem and
the foregoing district court cases, the ALJ here “grounded [his] conclusion that the
number of jobs mentioned was significant on [his] consideration of [Patrick’s] age,
education, work experience, and residual functional capacity and that [Patrick]
was capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in the
economy.” Milhem, 52 F.4th at 696.
While the Milhem court cautioned that moving forward, reviewing courts
should be “attentive to the difference between regional and national job numbers”
in their discussions as to what constitutes a “significant” number of jobs, it did not
impose any requirement that there must be evidence pertaining to regional job
numbers in the record before the ALJ. Id. Patrick cites Liskowitz v. Astrue in
support of his statement that the Seventh Circuit has established a threshold of
1,000 jobs for a claimant’s regional numbers. 559 F.3d 736, 743 (7th Cir. 2009).
However, the Liskowitz court cited that figure immediately following its statement
that the claimant did “not argue that 4,000 jobs is insignificant; nor would such an
argument be plausible.” Id. (VE testified to 4,000 jobs in the Milwaukee area). The
Liskowitz court did not impose any requirement that regional numbers are
required for the ALJ to properly reach a conclusion at Step Five as to whether a
“significant” number of jobs exist. Patrick cites no Seventh Circuit appellate case
and the Court has been unable to locate one that imposed a duty on the ALJ to
specifically elicit testimony regarding regional job numbers.6 Ultimately, the
Court does not find that the ALJ committed reversible error in concluding Patrick’s
ability to perform a total of 35,600 jobs in the entire United States constituted his
ability to perform a “significant” number of jobs in the national economy at Step
Five.
IV
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 14) is DENIED and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (Doc.
17) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment as follows: “IT
IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the Defendant, Kilolo
Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, denying benefits to the Plaintiff,
Patrick J.W., is AFFIRMED.” This matter is now terminated.
It is so ordered.
Entered on June 12, 2023.
s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6 On a sidenote, two of the cases Milhem cited for national job numbers did not mention regional job numbers. Nor did the Sara B.,
Harry, or Teresa M. courts include regional job numbers in their analyses.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10137184. Public record. Not legal advice.