Jacquay v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

KRISTINE MARIE JACQUAY, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 3:21-CV-285-JPK

)

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of )

Social Security, )

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Complaint [DE 1], and Plaintiff’s Opening Brief [DE

23], requesting that the May 21, 2020 decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denying

her claim for disability insurance benefits be reversed and benefits awarded. For the following

reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for remand, but declines to award benefits.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 23, 2018, Plaintiff Kristine Marie Jacquay filed an application for disability

benefits, alleging disability beginning November 10, 2017. Plaintiff’s application was denied

initially and on reconsideration. (AR 62-99).1 Plaintiff requested a hearing, which was held before

an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on April 3, 2020. (AR 33-61). On May 21, 2020, the ALJ

issued an unfavorable decision, making the following findings:2

1. The claimant’s date last insured is September 30, 2022, for purposes of

Medicare.

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November

23, 2018, the application date.

1 Page numbers in the Administrative Record (AR) refer to the page numbers assigned by the filer, which are found

on the lower right corner of the page, and not the page numbers assigned by the Court’s CM/ECF system.

2 These findings quote the bolded findings throughout the ALJ’s decision. Internal citations to the Code of Federal

Regulations are omitted.

3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: asthma; migraines;

major depressive disorder; generalized anxiety disorder; and post-traumatic stress

disorder.

4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments

that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20

CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.

5. … [T]he claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work

as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) subject to the following additional limitations:

The claimant can stand, walk, or sit for six hours each out of an eight hour workday.

She can never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; and no concentrated exposure to

moving machinery and unprotected heights. Work with a moderate level of noise;

and no concentrated exposure to fumes, dusts, odors, gases, and poor ventilation.

With work that can be learned in 30 days, or less, with simple routine tasks; routine

work place changes; simple work related decisions; and with occasional interaction

with coworkers, supervisors, and the general public.

6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work.

7. The claimant was 52 years old, which is defined as an individual closely

approaching advanced age, on the date the application was filed.

8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate

in English.

9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability

because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding the

claimant is “not disabled”, whether or not the claimant has transferable job skills

10. Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual

functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national

economy the claimant can perform.

11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social

Security Act, since November 23, 2018, the date the application was filed.

(AR 17-27).

Plaintiff appealed, but the Appeals Council denied review. (AR 1-3). Plaintiff then filed

this civil action seeking review of the Agency’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Social Security Act authorizes judicial review of the agency’s final decision. 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g). The question before the Court is not whether the claimant is in fact disabled, but whether

the ALJ’s decision “applies the correct legal standard and is supported by substantial evidence.”

Summers v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 523, 526 (7th Cir. 2017); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Under § 405(g), the

Court must accept the Commissioner’s factual findings as conclusive if they are supported by

substantial evidence, which is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion.” Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118, 1120-21 (7th Cir. 2014)

(quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).

The Court reviews the entire administrative record but does not re-weigh the evidence,

resolve conflicts in evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. See McKinzey v. Astrue,

641 F.3d 884, 890 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Lopez ex rel. Lopez v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 535, 539 (7th

Cir. 2003)). However, “if the Commissioner commits an error of law,” the Court may reverse the

decision “without regard to the volume of evidence in support of the factual findings.” White v.

Apfel, 167 F.3d 369, 373 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Binion v. Chater, 108 F.3d 780, 782 (7th Cir.

1997)). At a minimum, an ALJ must articulate her analysis of the evidence in order to allow the

reviewing court to trace the path of his reasoning and to be assured that the ALJ considered the

important evidence. See Scott v. Barnhart, 297 F.3d 589, 595 (7th Cir. 2002). The ALJ also has a

basic obligation to develop a full and fair record and “must build an accurate and logical bridge

between the evidence and the result to afford the claimant meaningful judicial review of the

administrative findings.” Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 834, 837 (7th Cir. 2014).

DISABILITY STANDARD

To be eligible for benefits, a claimant must establish that she suffers from a “disability,”

defined as an inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically

determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or that has

lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. 42 U.S.C.

§ 423(d)(1)(A). The ALJ follows a five-step inquiry to determine whether a claimant is disabled:

(1) whether the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset of

disability, (2) whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or combination of

impairments that is severe, (3) whether the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments

meets or medically equals the criteria of any presumptively disabling impairment listed in the

regulations, (4) if the claimant does not meet a listing, whether she is unable to perform her past

relevant work, and (5) if the claimant is unable to perform past relevant work, whether she is

unable to perform any work in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v).

Prior to step four, the ALJ determines the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC),

which “is an administrative assessment of what work-related activities an individual can perform

despite her limitations.” Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1178 (7th Cir. 2001). An affirmative

answer at either step three or step five leads to a finding of disability. Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v.

Barnhart, 524 F.3d 345, 352 (7th Cir. 2005); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The claimant bears the

burden of proving steps one through four, whereas the burden at step five is on the ALJ. Zurawski

v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 885-86 (7th Cir. 2001).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to properly account for her mental impairments and her

shoulder injuries in the RFC, and misapplied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines at step five by

analyzing her under the “light work” grid, rather than the “sedentary work” grid.3 The Court finds

no reversible error in the ALJ’s treatment of Plaintiff’s mental impairments, but the ALJ’s

treatment of her shoulder issues requires remand.

I. Plaintiff’s Mental Impairments.

At the time of the hearing, Plaintiff worked part-time in a remote position for a school

district, but was suffering from anxiety and depression. She testified that in 2014, she was

threatened by her former husband at gunpoint and had to temporarily leave her home, after which

she began to develop panic attacks when driving. (AR 48-49). In her March 2019 function report

to the agency, she reported that her “mind tends to wander,” but she had no difficulty preparing

“balanced” meals every day and completing three to four hours of housework. (AR 281-83). She

had no problems socializing with others or dealing with authority figures, but handled stress poorly

and became “anxious” with changes in routine. (AR 284-86).

The record indicates that she sought mental health treatment from several providers. In

February 2018, she was diagnosed with “recurrent major depression in full remission” and

generalized anxiety disorder. (AR 425). At that time, her symptoms suggested “minimal”

depression and anxiety with “significant,” but less than “moderate,” functional impairment. (See

AR 423) (diagnostic surveys). Over the following months, she continued to report anxiety, but

frequently reported that she was stable or “doing okay,” and satisfied with her medication plan,

although she had some side effects from tapering off certain medications. (See, e.g., AR 429, 436-

3 Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ failed to “accurately describe the evidentiary threshold” for entitlement to disability

benefits. (Pl. Br. 5-6). Specifically, she objects to the ALJ’s statement that the record did not contain “sufficient

objective medical evidence to substantiate” Plaintiff’s allegations of pain and functional limitations. (AR 24). The

Court finds no error or contradiction in the ALJ’s statement. By definition, a record that does not show disability by

a preponderance of the evidence does not contain “sufficient” evidence to award benefits. Language aside, it does not

appear to the Court that the ALJ applied the wrong evidentiary standard. See Gedatus v. Saul, 994 F.3d 893, 900 (7th

Cir. 2021) (“[W]e do not read the ALJ’s [boilerplate] language that way. It is clear to us, given the context, that the

ALJ merely used a polite way to say the weight of the evidence did not support all her claims.”).

37, 444, 451-452). Plaintiff saw a therapist between November 2018 and January 2019 (AR 587-

607), and the therapist wrote a letter indicating that Plaintiff had good understanding, memory,

and concentration, and regular social relationships, although her social life caused some anxiety.

(AR 607). At a consultation in January 2019, another therapist reported that she was tense, anxious,

and tearful, but displayed “superior” intellect and insight, and fair “capacity for daily living.” (AR

681-86). The only qualifying4 medical opinions came from the state agency doctors, and the ALJ

dismissed these opinions as “moot” because the record was updated after they were issued. (AR

24).

The ALJ summarized this evidence (AR 22-24), and found that Plaintiff’s major depressive

disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder were all severe

impairments (AR 18). At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had moderate limitations in

“understanding, remembering, and applying information” and “interacting with others,” and mild

limitations in “concentrating, persisting, and maintaining pace” and “adapting or managing

oneself.” (AR 20). The ALJ found that Plaintiff did not meet the criteria for a Listing, but limited

her to light work with a “moderate level of noise . . . that can be learned in 30 days, or less, with

simple routine tasks; routine work place changes; simple work related decisions; and with

occasional interaction with coworkers, supervisors, and the general public.” (AR 20-21).

Plaintiff objects that the RFC was not detailed enough and did not account for all her

impairments. (Pl. Br. 7-12). First, Plaintiff cites a line of cases indicating that “platitudes” such as

“simple, routine tasks” do not necessarily account for a person’s difficulties in concentration,

4 The record contained four letters (AR 607, 623, 638, 681) from counselors and therapists. The letters mainly

confirmed that Plaintiff was seeking therapy for anxiety and depression, without suggesting any functional limitations.

The ALJ found that these were not “acceptable” medical sources, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a) (as relevant here, an

“acceptable” medical source is a licensed physician or psychologist), and accordingly found them “minimally

persuasive” (AR 24). Plaintiff does not contest these findings.

persistence and pace. E.g., Crump v. Saul, 932 F.3d 567, 570 (7th Cir. 2019). Clearly, not all issues

of “concentration” or “pace” can be resolved by making tasks simpler. See, e.g., Varga v. Colvin,

794 F.3d 809, 814 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting that “unskilled” work is defined as work that can be

quickly learned by demonstration: “[W]hether work can be learned in this manner is unrelated to

the question of whether an individual with . . . difficulties maintaining concentration, persistence,

or pace . . . can perform such work.”); see also SSR 85-15, 1985 WL 56857 (January 1, 1985), *6

(“Because response to the demands of work is highly individualized, the skill level of a position is

not necessarily related to the difficulty an individual will have in meeting the demands of the job.

A claimant’s [mental] condition may make performance of an unskilled job as difficult as an

objectively more demanding job.”). But a limitation to unskilled work can account for

concentration difficulties if the record indicates that it addresses the underlying symptoms. See,

e.g., Pytlewski v. Saul, 791 F. App’x 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2019); Dudley v. Berryhill, 773 F. App’x

838, 842 (7th Cir. 2019) (holding that a restriction to “work requiring the exercise of only simple

judgment . . . specifically account[ed] for . . . concentration difficulties”).

In this case, the ALJ explained her findings about Plaintiff’s concentration, persistence,

and pace: Plaintiff had only mild limitations in these areas, because “[m]ost mental status

examinations note no abnormality in this area, but her complaints of anxiousness and physical pain

would have some impact on her overall functioning in this domain.” (AR 20). Plaintiff does not

challenge that finding, and the ALJ cited numerous treatment notes to support it. (See AR 23-24,

citing, e.g., AR 415, 432, 455-56). The RFC contained a restriction to unskilled work to relieve

Plaintiff of “additional pressures” of the workplace, but the ALJ found that the evidence did not

establish the need for any further limitations in this area. (AR 25); see Pytlewski, 791 F. App’x at

616-17 (a restriction to “simple, routine tasks and limited interactions with others . . . may be

adequate [for] a claimant with ‘stress- or panic-related’ limitations”).

Plaintiff does not directly point to any evidence that the ALJ ignored. Instead, she argues

the RFC should have been “more granular.” (Pl. Br. 8). She notes that “the Commissioner

recognizes some 14-20 functions that are critical to performing unskilled work,” only a few of

which appeared in this RFC. Pl. Br. 9 (citing POMS DI 25020.010; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568; SSRs

96-9p, 96-8p, and 83-10p). She argues that her anxiety and panic attacks warrant more limitations,

such as in responding appropriately to supervisors and coworkers, asking for help, dealing with

criticism, and attendance. (Id. at 10).

Stretched to its natural conclusion, Plaintiff’s argument could justify almost any limitation.

Anxiety could affect a person’s attendance, relationships with co-workers, ability to deal with

criticism, and so on. But the ALJ did not need to address 20 different functions simply because

anxiety was mentioned. See Urbanek v. Saul, 796 F. App’x 910, 914 (7th Cir. 2019) (“[e]ven

generic limitations, such as limiting a claimant to simple, repetitive tasks,” can adequately account

for psychological symptoms). The claimant has to show why her particular impairments would

create those specific limitations. Weaver v. Berryhill, 746 F. App’x 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2018) (“It

was Weaver’s burden to establish not just the existence of the conditions, but to provide evidence

that they support specific limitations affecting her capacity to work.”)).

To the extent that evidence appears here, the ALJ considered it. For example, Plaintiff

testified that at a previous job in a school, “[t]he classroom was unorganized and we had kids that

were basically whining all day and that kind of spiked my anxiety. We had a couple of kids that

needed to be showered on arrival because of a bed bug situation . . . I experienced a lot of anxiety

and I could not keep that job.” (AR 51). How much of this difficulty was related to Plaintiff’s

limitations, and how much of it was due to the fact that this was an unusually stressful job? The

ALJ considered this testimony (AR 22-23), along with the medical evidence, and concluded that

Plaintiff could do an easier job with limited social interaction and no more than a “moderate level

of noise.” (AR 21). Perhaps another ALJ would answer the question differently, but it is not the

Court’s role to re-weigh the evidence, nor is that a basis for remand.5 McKinzey, 641 F.3d at 890.

II. Plaintiff’s Shoulder Impairment.

The ALJ considered evidence that Plaintiff was suffering from shoulder pain, but found

that it “did not appear to meet the 12-month durational requirement” for a disabling impairment.

(AR 18). The ALJ restricted her to light work partly “in consideration of her . . . allegations of

right shoulder and back pain,” (AR 19), but there were no limitations on reaching or grasping, and

it is not clear how the ALJ concluded that she could fulfill the other requirements of light work

based on her shoulder injury. On review, it appears the ALJ misunderstood the evidence relating

to Plaintiff’s shoulder, leading to multiple errors that require remand.

Plaintiff began complaining of shoulder pain in April 2019. (AR 718, 859). By August

2019, her orthopedist recorded that the pain was 6 out of 10 and “getting somewhat worse.” (AR

718). An MRI revealed likely arthritis with bone edema, but no rotator cuff tear. (AR 734-735). In

October 2019, she reported receiving a cortisone shot the previous month, and stated that she was

on her “3rd round of physical therapy.” (AR 357-58). The ALJ found that Plaintiff “only attended

two physical therapy sessions for her shoulder” (AR 18), but is not clear how the ALJ arrived at

5 The same conclusion applies to Plaintiff’s panic attacks. For example, Plaintiff argues that her mental impairments

warranted limitations related to “attendance,” presumably because of the panic attacks. But as the ALJ observed, the

evidence of panic attacks mostly arose in the context of driving on the highway (see AR 48, 284, 419). Plaintiff did

not report or testify to attendance issues at previous jobs, and she reported to medical providers that she had no

difficulty making scheduled appointments or meetings. (See AR 420). Another ALJ could have interpreted the

potential for panic attacks more broadly, but Plaintiff does not point to anything specific that would require that

inference. The ALJ’s findings here were supported by substantial evidence.

that conclusion, because the therapists’ records indicate that Plaintiff attended at least nine

sessions. (See AR 761 (“Today [November 6] is 9th PT treatment”)). The distinction is significant,

because the ALJ relied on Plaintiff’s purportedly brief treatment to conclude that her shoulder

impairment was not serious. (See AR 19).

A claimant is not eligible for benefits unless the disabling impairment would last for at

least 12 months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509. It appears the ALJ assumed

that Plaintiff abandoned her physical therapy because her shoulder was no longer hurting, so the

impairment must not have lasted 12 months. But the record indicates that the shoulder problem

was ongoing in some form, and ALJ ultimately acknowledged that by citing it as a basis for

restricting her to light work. (AR 19). The finding that Plaintiff’s shoulder impairment did not

meet the 12-month durational requirement was not adequately explained.

The ALJ further stated that “the last [shoulder] treatment contained in the medical evidence

of record” was in November 2019. That finding appears to be contradicted by the record. At her

physical therapy appointment on November 6, 2019, the therapist wrote that she “started to go to

the chiropractor” and “feels a bit better since.” (AR 761). The chiropractor’s notes indicate that he

treated her shoulder in November and December. (AR 825-833). On November 20, 2019, her

shoulder pain had “gone from 8 to 2, getting better.” (AR 827-828). By December 6, 2019, the

pain had “gone to a numby mild pain, seems to wiggle.” (AR 829-830). On December 10, 2019,

she had pain in her right neck “radiating to her shoulder.” (AR 830). It appears that she was

prescribed exercises to do at home. (See AR 831-33). At the April 2020 hearing, roughly a year

after her initial shoulder complaint, Plaintiff testified that she was still going to physical therapy

“two to three times a week, and if this pain does not go away, [the orthopedist is] suggesting that

[she] have surgery.” (AR 52). However, the therapists’ notes did indicate that the last appointment

she attended was on November 6, roughly six months before the hearing.6 Plaintiff’s ongoing

physical therapy is not documented in the record, but if her testimony is true, the impairment would

have lasted for twelve months.

When the lack of documented treatment is a basis for finding a claimant’s symptoms

inconsistent with the evidence, the ALJ must “consider possible reasons he or she may not comply

with treatment or seek treatment consistent with the degree of his or her complaints. [The ALJ]

may need to contact the individual regarding the lack of treatment or, at an administrative

proceeding, ask why he or she has not complied with or sought treatment in a manner consistent

with his or her complaints.” SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 at *8 (Mar. 16, 2016); see also Shauger

v. Astrue, 675 F.3d 690, 696 (7th Cir. 2012); Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 562 (7th Cir. 2009)

(“[T]he ALJ ‘must not draw any inferences’ about a claimant’s condition from this failure unless

the ALJ has explored the claimant’s explanations as to the lack of medical care.”) (quoting Craft

v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 679 (7th Cir. 2008)). This situation illustrates the importance of that rule:

the ALJ assumed Plaintiff pursued only minimal treatment based in part on a misreading of the

medical notes. Plaintiff testified that she was still seeking physical therapy, but the ALJ ignored

that testimony in the decision, and did not attempt to clarify the contradictory evidence. Although

there are no records of shoulder treatment after December 2019, there are no records of any kind

from January 2020 until the April 3, 2020 hearing, so it may be that the record was not updated.

Regardless, the ALJ needed to “explore” the reasons for the lack of treatment, if indeed Plaintiff

stopped treatment.

If the shoulder impairment was ongoing, it needed to be considered in the RFC, regardless

of whether it was severe or non-severe. Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 423 (7th Cir. 2010). The

6 On December 6, the therapists wrote: “Patient has not returned as recommended and contacts were attempted to

schedule patient without success.” (AR 760).

ALJ did so in this case, restricting Plaintiff to light work partly “in consideration of her . . .

allegations of right shoulder and back pain.” (AR 19). But is unclear how the ALJ arrived at the

conclusion that Plaintiff’s shoulder issues could be accommodated with light work. The most

prominent difference between “light” work and more rigorous work is that the worker avoids

lifting heavy weight or exerting a lot of force. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567; Dictionary of

Occupational Titles, App’x C, § IV(c) (comparing light, medium, and heavy work). But a person

doing light work still has to lift up to “20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently,” “and/or

a negligible amount [ ] constantly,” see id., which means that Plaintiff’s work could involve lifting

for several hours a day.7 The ALJ did not rely on a medical opinion in crafting the RFC, and there

was no substantive explanation as to why “light work” was appropriate here as opposed to some

other (or additional) restriction. The ALJ may have been unsure what restrictions to impose given

Plaintiff’s ambiguous record of recent shoulder treatment, but if so, that would be cause to seek an

updated medical opinion8; “light work” is not a fallback or catch-all limitation for a poorly-

documented impairment. See, e.g., Black v. Colvin, No. 4:13-CV-79-PRC, 2015 WL 1005405, at

*8-9 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 3, 2015) (“[D]espite finding Plaintiff not credible, the ALJ . . . reduced

exertion to light [work] with other appropriate limitations . . . [but] did not explain how he found

that Plaintiff could do light work, as opposed to less than light work.”).

Unlike with Plaintiff’s mental impairments, there was evidence here that seemed to support

other kinds of restrictions. For example, the RFC contained no restrictions on reaching or handling,

7 “Frequently” means “1/3 to 2/3 of the time”; “constantly” means “more than 2/3 of the time.” Dictionary of

Occupational Titles, App’x C, § IV(c).

8 An ALJ must seek an updated medical opinion when the alternative is to “play [] doctor and interpret new and

potentially decisive medical evidence without medical scrutiny.” Kemplen v. Saul, 844 F. App’x 883, 887 (7th Cir.

2021) (quoting McHenry v. Berryhill, 911 F.3d 866, 871 (7th Cir. 2018)).

other than the restrictions on weight and endurance implied in the definition of light work. But

Plaintiff had a positive Neer impingement sign (AR 718), which means “pain with passive shoulder

forward flexion beyond 90 degrees.”9 “Aggravating factors” for her pain included fastening her

bra and tying her shoes. (AR 691). She reported sharp pains with overhead movement. (AR 708).

To her physical therapist, she reported “some difficulty” reaching a shoulder-height shelf or

putting on a seat belt. (AR 766). These facts, none of which were cited by the ALJ, appear to

support some limitation on reaching or handling; a restriction to “light work” does not account for

limitations like these. See Hill v. Astrue, 295 F. App’x 77, 82 (7th Cir. 2008) (a limitation to light

work did not adequately account for a claimant’s shoulder arthritis, given evidence of pain and

reduced range of motion). On remand, if Plaintiff’s shoulder impairment is to be reflected in the

RFC, the ALJ must explain how the restrictions in the RFC account for her limitations.

III. Request for Award of Benefits

Plaintiff requests remand for an award of benefits. “Courts have the statutory power to

affirm, reverse, or modify the Social Security Administration’s decision, with or without

remanding the case for further proceedings.” Allord v. Astrue, 631 F.3d 411, 415 (7th Cir. 2011)

(citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). Nonetheless, “[a]n award of benefits is appropriate . . . only if all

factual issues involved in the entitlement determination have been resolved and the resulting record

supports only one conclusion—that the applicant qualifies for disability benefits.” Id. at 415. As

described above, the record is unclear as to the state of Plaintiff’s shoulder impairment. It is not

clear that Plaintiff is disabled as defined in the Social Security Act, so the Court declines Plaintiff’s

request to award benefits and remands the case for further proceedings.

9 See National Library of Medicine, Rotator Cuff Snydrome, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK531506/ (last

accessed September 14, 2022).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby GRANTS in part the relief sought in Plaintiff’s

Opening Brief [DE 23] and REMANDS the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of

Plaintiff and against Defendant.

So ORDERED this 14th day of September, 2022.

s/ Joshua P. Kolar

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSHUA P. KOLAR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT