Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION
JANET B., 1 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 3:24-cv-00236-RLY-CSW
)
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
)
)
)
Defendant. 	)
ENTRY ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Janet B. suffers from degenerative disc disease, Tarlov cysts, and
coronary artery disease. She applied for Social Security Benefits in April 2022. The
Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied her claims initially and upon
reconsideration. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") held that Janet is
not disabled. Janet then filed this suit for review of the ALJ's decision under 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g).
The court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the court affirm the ALJ's decision, and Janet
1 To protect the privacy of claimants for Social Security benefits, consistent with the
recommendation of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Southern District of Indiana has opted to
use only the first name and last initial of non-governmental parties in its Social Security judicial
review opinions.
Case 3:24-cv-00236-RLY-CSW Document 23 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
filed an objection. For the reasons set forth below, the court OVERRULES the objection
and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
I. 	Background
A. 	ALJ Review
Janet filed an application for a period of disability and disability insurance
benefits. She also filed an application for supplemental security income, alleging
disability. Janet alleged disability beginning on April 14, 2022, in both applications. The
SSA denied her claims initially and upon reconsideration. Janet then requested a hearing
before an ALJ. The ALJ found that Janet was not disabled.
In concluding that Janet was not disabled, the ALJ followed the five-step
sequential evaluation described in 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a). At step one, the ALJ
concluded that Janet had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged
onset of her disability. (Dkt. 8-2 at ECF p. 25). At step two, the ALJ concluded that
Janet had the severe impairments of degenerative disc disease, Tarlov cysts,2 and
coronary artery disease. (Id.). The ALJ also found that she had the medically
determinable impairments of irritable bowel syndrome, migraine headaches, and
Keratoconjunctivitis. (Id.).
After step three, but before step four, the ALJ assessed Janet's residual functional
capacity (RFC) and her past relevant work. (Id. at ECF pp. 27–30). In making these
findings, the ALJ considered record evidence, Janet's hearing testimony, and the opinion
2 Tarlov cysts are fluid sacks that form in the spine and put pressure on the nerves, which cause
pain.
Case 3:24-cv-00236-RLY-CSW Document 23 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
of a medical expert. (Id.). Relevant here is the evidence regarding Janet's Tarlov cysts
and coronary artery disease.
The record showed that Janet was experiencing pain throughout her body because
of her Tarlov cysts. (Id. at ECF p. 27). She underwent two spine surgeries to remove the
cysts—the first in May 2021, and the second in November 2021. (Id. at ECF p. 28).
After the surgeries, Janet reported varying levels of pain. In September 2022, she
reported that she was "not having the vertebral spine pain that she was having." (Dkt. 8-8
at ECF p. 320). In November 2022 she reported back pain. (Id. at ECF p. 33). She said
it had not gone away after her surgeries and that she struggled to carry more than six
pounds. (Id.). Then in May 2023, she reported that her "[s]pine pain [was] overall
stable." (Id. at ECF p. 5).
The ALJ found her medical exams to largely show improvement, as exams from
August, October, and November 2022 and March 2023 showed normal functioning.
(Dkt. 8-2 at ECF p. 29; Dkt. 8-8 at ECF pp. 20, 38, 68, 73–74, 137). Although her exams
showed improvement, Janet testified that she was still experiencing back pain. (Dkt. 8-2
at ECF p. 45). She had to get a special chair to sit in that does not put pressure on her
back. (Id.). She also testified that she had to call her family ahead of an event to warn
them not to touch her back. (Id. at ECF p. 51). The record also showed that she wore a
vest that said not to touch her back to her consultative exam. (Dkt. 8-7 at ECF p. 553).
Regarding the heart condition, Janet testified that beginning in August 2022, she
went to the emergency room five times for chest pain. (Dkt. 8-2 at ECF p. 46). She was
diagnosed with acid reflux until May 2023, when she was diagnosed with coronary artery
Case 3:24-cv-00236-RLY-CSW Document 23 Filed 12/31/25 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
disease. (Id. at ECF pp. 27, 46–47). She had stents placed in her heart in May 2023, and
she had a bypass surgery in June 2023. (Id. at ECF p. 27). After the bypass surgery Janet
began a cardio rehabilitation program, which she finished in September 2023. (Dkt. 12 at
6). 	At her hearing with the ALJ, Janet testified that she was doing well after finishing the
rehab program. (Dkt. 8-2 at ECF p. 47).
The last piece of evidence relevant to Janet's objection is the medical source
opinion from Dr. Joe Edward Banks, II, D.O. Janet attended an internal consultative
examination with Dr. Banks at the request of the SSA. (Dkt. 12 at 15). Dr. Banks
documented Janet's subjective symptoms. (Dkt. 8-7 at ECF p. 547). His exam largely
reports that Janet had normal functioning. (Id. at ECF pp. 549–52). But he did note that
she had decreased flexion, extension, lateral flexion, and rotation in her lower back. (Id.
at ECF pp. 552–53). Dr. Banks concluded his report with his medical opinion, stating
that Janet had "moderate limitations with sitting, standing and walking" and "severe
limitations with lifting and carrying weight." (Id. at ECF p. 553). Lastly, he noted that
Janet would be unable to bend, stoop, crouch, squat, reach, grasp, handle, finger, or feel.
(Id. at ECF p. 554).
After considering the medical evidence, the ALJ determined Janet's RFC. He
found that Janet could perform light work except she can "occasionally climb ramps and
stairs; never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolding; occasionally balance, stoop, kneel,
crouch, and crawl." (Dkt. 8-2 at ECF p. 27). The ALJ discredited Dr. Banks's opinion
that proposed increased limitations because he found it to be inconsistent with the exam
and the remaining evidence in the record. (Dkt. 8-2 at ECF p. 30).
Case 3:24-cv-00236-RLY-CSW Document 23 Filed 12/31/25 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Then at step four, the ALJ asked a vocational expert about Janet's ability to work
given her age, education, work experience, and medical limitations. (Id. at ECF pp. 30–
31). The vocational expert answered that Janet could perform her past work as office
manager, salesperson, or bookkeeper, and the ALJ adopted that conclusion. (Id. at ECF
p. 30). Because the ALJ found that Janet could perform her past relevant work, she was
not disabled, and the ALJ did not need to proceed to step five. (Id. at ECF p. 25).
B. 	Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
After receiving an unfavorable decision from the ALJ, Janet filed a Complaint for
Review of the ALJ's decision. (Dkt. 1). The court referred the matter to the Magistrate
Judge, who issued her Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge concluded
that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and therefore
recommended that the court affirm the determination that Janet is not disabled. This
matter now comes before the court on Janet's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation. (Dkt. 20).
All other facts relevant to the disposition of this objection are addressed in the
discussion section.
II. 	Legal Standard
The court reviews the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation de novo.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The court "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition." Id.
The court reviews the ALJ's decision to ensure that it "applies the correct legal
standard and is supported by substantial evidence." Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299,
Case 3:24-cv-00236-RLY-CSW Document 23 Filed 12/31/25 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
306 (7th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S.
97, 103 (2019). Under the substantial evidence standard, the court reviews the ALJ's
decision to determine if there is a logical and accurate bridge between the evidence and
the conclusion. Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013). In making this
determination, the court must consider the entire administrative record but not "reweigh
the evidence, resolve conflicts, decide questions of credibility, or substitute [its] own
judgment for that of the Commissioner." Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 869 (7th Cir.
2000).
III. 	Discussion
Janet raises myriad issues with the ALJ's RFC determination that can be separated
into two categories. First, the ALJ erred in his credibility determination. Second, the
ALJ erred when he discredited the examining physician's opinion. The Commissioner
argues that the ALJ did not err and that his decision was supported by substantial
evidence. The court will address Janet's arguments in turn.
A. 	Credibility Determination
Janet raises three issues with the ALJ's credibility determination. First, the ALJ
failed to consider the "nature of [her] pain and dysfunction from her Tarlov cysts." (Dkt.
12 at 10). Second, the ALJ failed to "properly evaluate [her] pain and dysfunction
stemming from her heart implant." (Id. at 12). And third, the ALJ erred by relying
Case 3:24-cv-00236-RLY-CSW Document 23 Filed 12/31/25 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
exclusively on objective medical evidence when dismissing her subjective symptom
allegations.
When evaluating a claimant's subjective statements about the intensity and
persistence of her symptoms, the ALJ must often, as here, make a credibility
determination concerning the limiting effects of her symptoms. Cole v. Colvin, 831 F.3d
411, 412 (7th Cir. 2016). Reviewing courts "may disturb the ALJ's credibility finding
only if it is 'patently wrong.'" Burmester v. Berryhill, 920 F.3d 507, 510 (7th Cir. 2019)
(quoting Curvin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 645, 651 (7th Cir. 2015)). However, in assessing the
claimant's credibility, an ALJ is required to "build an accurate and logical bridge from the
evidence to his conclusion." Clifford, 227 F.3d at 872 (citing Green v. Apfel, 204 F.3d
780, 781 (7th Cir. 2000); Groves v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 809, 811 (7th Cir. 1998)).
First, the ALJ did not fail to evaluate the pain from Janet's Tarlov cysts in making
his credibility determination. Janet contends that the ALJ did not account for the fact that
her pain was severe enough to need two surgeries despite the pain not revealing itself on
exam. The court disagrees. True, the ALJ noted that she had normal exam findings
before her surgeries, but he did not base his decision solely on that point. (See Dkt. 8-2 at
ECF p. 28). The ALJ also cited evidence from the record where Janet said that her pain
had improved in September 2022 and May 2023, after her two surgeries. (Id.).
Janet argues that the "ALJ should have looked at [her] reports to her treatment
providers that showed [her] pain and dysfunction did not resolve with her surgeries," and
cites two reports of pain from November 2022 and March 2023. (Dkt. 12 at 11). The
ALJ addressed both documents that Janet says the ALJ should have focused on. (Dkt. 8-
Case 3:24-cv-00236-RLY-CSW Document 23 Filed 12/31/25 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
2 at ECF p. 28). But after citing the documents, the ALJ pointed out that Janet reported
in May 2023, that her spine pain was stable. (Id.). Thus, the ALJ appropriately
addressed inconsistencies that he saw in the record when making his credibility
determination and did not ignore the evidence as Janet contends.
It appears that Janet is merely asking the court to reweigh the evidence, which it
will not do. Clifford, 227 F.3d at 869. The ALJ's analysis of Janet's spine pain was not
patently wrong.
Second, the ALJ did not fail to properly evaluate Janet's pain and dysfunction from
her heart implant. Janet argues that the ALJ only said, "[f]rom a cardiac standpoint, there
was nothing notable until May 2023," despite records showing claims of chest pain
beginning in November 2020. (Dkt. 12 at 12). But earlier in his decision, the ALJ noted
that Janet testified about her visits to the Emergency Room for chest pain. (Dkt. 8-2 at
ECF p. 27). True, the ALJ did not discuss how Janet's chest pains were misdiagnosed as
acid reflux before she had surgery, but it is unclear how the ALJ discussing that evidence
would have changed his RFC determination because it does not indicate a need for work
limitations. See Thorlton v. King, 127 F.4th 1078, 1081 (7th Cir. 2025) ("Establishing the
existence of an impairment is not enough. The claimant must present evidence of
limitations affecting their capacity to work."). Again, it appears that Janet is asking the
court to reweigh the evidence, but the court may only overturn an ALJ's credibility
determination if it is patently wrong. See Burmester, 920 F.3d at 510. And the ALJ's
decision to discount her allegations of limitation, persistence, and pace was not patently
wrong. As the ALJ pointed out at the hearing, Janet testified that she was doing well after
Case 3:24-cv-00236-RLY-CSW Document 23 Filed 12/31/25 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
having bypass surgery on June 28, 2023, and finishing her cardiac rehab. (Dkt. 8-2 at
ECF p. 29). The ALJ did not err by failing to give more weight than he saw fit to her
allegations of pain given the evidence in the record.
Third, the ALJ did not rely solely on the objective medical evidence to discount
Janet's allegations. As noted above, the ALJ cited Janet's reports of improved symptoms,
(Id. at ECF p. 28) and her hearing testimony, (id. at ECF pp. 28–29). Thus, he cited more
than "imaging and examinations" when he found that her allegations were not consistent
with the objective medical evidence. (Dkt. 12 at 12). Janet faults the ALJ for not
discussing her trouble sleeping, the special chair she needs to sit in for her back, or her
need to wear a vest that says not to touch her, but the ALJ need not discuss every piece of
evidence in forming the RFC. See Gedatus v. Saul, 994 F.3d 893, 901 (7th Cir. 2021).
The court acknowledges that the ALJ's decision would have been more robust had he
walked through those facts in determining the RFC, but failing to do so does not amount
to reversible error here.
Although the ALJ could have said more when discussing why Janet's allegations
were inconsistent with the record, his analysis said enough for the court to engage in a
meaningful review, see Thorlton, 127 F.4th at 1083, and the court cannot say that his
decision was patently wrong.
B. 	Medical Opinion Analysis
Janet argues that the ALJ inadequately examined Dr. Banks's medical source
opinion. She raises two issues with the ALJ's assessment. First, the ALJ improperly
rejected the opinion because it was based solely on her subjective complaints. Second,
Case 3:24-cv-00236-RLY-CSW Document 23 Filed 12/31/25 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
the ALJ erred by saying that Dr. Banks's opinion was inconsistent with reports that her
pain was improving because her pain was not fully resolved by her surgeries. The court
addresses the arguments in order.
The court does not "review medical opinions independently but rather review[s]
the ALJ's weighing of those opinions for substantial evidence." Grotts v. Kijakazi, 27
F.4th 1273, 1278 (7th Cir. 2022). And the court will only overturn the ALJ's weighing "if
no reasonable mind could accept the ALJ's conclusion." Id.
Janet's first argument is without merit. She is right to note that an ALJ is not
permitted to dismiss a medical opinion because it is based only on a claimant's subjective
symptoms. But that is not what occurred here. Dr. Banks said Janet had moderate
limitations sitting, standing, and walking and that she had severe limitations with lifting
and carrying. (Dkt. 8-7 at ECF p. 553). He also said that she would be unable to stoop,
crouch, squat, reach, grasp, handle, finger, or feel. (Id. at ECF pp. 553–54). He made all
these conclusions based on Janet's allegation of pain. (Id.).
When the ALJ considered this opinion, he stated it was "not persuasive[,] as the
sole rational for assigning these limitations was the claimant's subjective reports of pain."
(Dkt. 8-2 at ECF p. 30). If that was all the ALJ had said, then perhaps Janet's argument
would have some weight, but that was not the end of his analysis. Indeed, the ALJ
immediately followed that statement by saying Dr. Banks's opinion was not persuasive
because the claimant's reports of pain were inconsistent with the medical exam that Dr.
Banks had just performed. (Id.). For example, the exam notes said that Janet "was able
to squat and rise from that position with ease" and "[f]ine and gross manipulative abilities
Case 3:24-cv-00236-RLY-CSW Document 23 Filed 12/31/25 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
were grossly normal." (Dkt. 8-7 at ECF p. 551). The ALJ also noted that the opinion was
inconsistent with her overall treatment history and her reports of improving back pain.
(Id.).
This is not a case where the ALJ impermissibly discounted a medical opinion
because it was based solely on a claimant's subjective symptoms. Rather, the ALJ
soundly pointed out that Dr. Banks's opinion was inconsistent with the exam he
conducted and the remaining evidence in the record. Thus, the court finds that the ALJ's
reasoning is supported by substantial evidence.
Janet's second argument is equally without merit. She claims that the ALJ was
wrong to say that Dr. Banks's opinion was inconsistent with her reports of improved back
pain. She again points the court to her reports of continued pain in November 2022 and
March 2023. But as the ALJ noted in his subjective symptom analysis, Janet reported
improved pain in May 2023 and testified that she was doing well at the hearing before the
ALJ. (Id. at ECF pp. 28–29). The fact that Janet also reported continued pain does not
automatically mean the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Again,
the court cannot reweigh the evidence or the weight given to medical opinions. See
Clifford, 227 F.3d at 869; Grotts, 27 F.4th at 1278.
The court finds that the ALJ's weighing of Dr. Banks's medical opinion was
supported by substantial evidence.
Case 3:24-cv-00236-RLY-CSW Document 23 Filed 12/31/25 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
IV. 	Conclusion
The court OVERRULES Janet's objection, (Dkt. 20), and ADOPTS the Report
and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. 19).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of December 2025.
s/ RLY
Distributed Electronically to Registered Counsel of Record.
Case 3:24-cv-00236-RLY-CSW Document 23 Filed 12/31/25 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>