Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

CHERYL LYNN CAIN-WESA Plaintiff, v. Case No. 11-C-1063

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Cheryl Cain-Wesa applied for social security disability benefits, claiming that she could no longer work due to back and neck pain and mental impairments. (Tr. at 134.) The Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied her application initially and on reconsideration (Tr. at 71-81), as did an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") following a requested hearing (Tr. at 6-17, 82). The Appeals Council then declined review (Tr. at 1-3), making the ALJ's decision the final word from the agency on plaintiff's application. See Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff now seeks judicial review of the ALJ's decision. I. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS The reviewing court does not decide whether the claimant is disabled. Powers v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 431 (7th Cir. 2000). Rather, the court's job is to determine whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and supported his decision with "substantial evidence." Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805, 811 (7th Cir. 2011). Evidence is "substantial" if a reasonable person could accept it as adequate to support a conclusion. Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 841 (7th Cir. 2007). Thus, if the evidence is such that reasonable minds could differ over whether the

claimant is disabled, the court must affirm the ALJ's decision to deny the claim if adequately supported and explained. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413 (7th Cir. 2008). The court may not displace the ALJ's judgment by reconsidering facts or evidence, or by making independent credibility determinations. Id. In determining whether the claimant is disabled, the ALJ must follow the sequential five step test set forth in the regulations. See 20 C.F.R.

Download 26607.pdf

Wisconsin Law