Todd E. v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois affirmed the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision finding that Todd E. was not disabled from December 1, 2020, through September 15, 2022. The court rejected challenges concerning the vocational expert’s job-number testimony, the ALJ’s handling of a consultative examiner’s report, and the explanation for the differing disability periods. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reversal and remand and granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.

Holdings

1. The ALJ’s reliance on the vocational expert’s testimony concerning the bagger position was sufficient to establish that a significant number of jobs existed in the national economy. The bagger position alone involved 75,000 jobs, so any error concerning the packer and sandwich-maker positions was harmless.
2. An apparent conflict concerning the packer and sandwich-maker positions would ordinarily require the ALJ to elicit a reasonable explanation, but the court did not decide whether the vocational expert’s explanation was adequate because the bagger position independently supplied a significant number of jobs and rendered any error harmless.
3. The ALJ was not required to recontact Dr. Heinrichs because the consultative examination report was complete and adequate for decisionmaking; the allegedly vague limitations were superfluous rather than missing information necessary to evaluate the impairment.
4. The ALJ adequately explained the decision to give Dr. Heinrichs’ report only some weight by addressing its supportability and consistency with the record.
5. The ALJ adequately explained that Plaintiff experienced medical improvement and was not disabled from December 1, 2020, through September 15, 2022, while later evidence reflected worsening symptoms that supported disability beginning September 16, 2022.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ established at step five that a significant number of jobs existed in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform despite his residual functional capacity.
2. Whether the ALJ was required to recontact the consultative examiner because the examiner’s assessment contained vague limitations.
3. Whether the ALJ adequately explained the weight assigned to the consultative examiner’s report and considered its supportability and consistency.
4. Whether the ALJ adequately explained the determination that Plaintiff was not disabled from December 1, 2020, through September 15, 2022, despite finding him disabled before and after that period.

Disposition

affirmed