JON E. DeGUILIO, District Judge.
This is a social security appeal. The Claimant, Christine King, applied for social security disability benefits, but the Social Security Administration denied her application. So, she filed this action seeking review of the Commissioner's decision. The parties have now briefed the matter and it is ripe for review.
King filed for social security disability benefits on June 19, 2012, alleging a disability onset date of June 1, 2011. Tr. 19. Her claim was denied once initially and again on reconsideration. Tr. 62, 64. At King's request, Administrative Law Judge Romona Scales (the ALJ) then held a hearing on August 20, 2013, at which King was represented by counsel.
At the hearing, King testified that she works about twenty hours per week as an administrative assistant and has done so since 2010. Tr. 38-39. Generally she works two four-USDC to-five-hour days at a time, followed by a rest day. Tr. 52. She previously worked as an interior designer for about five years. Tr. 40.
While she worked forty hours per week prior to 2010, she is no longer able to do so. Tr. 38-39, 43. She has lupus, which causes her significant fatigue and prevents her from working two eight-hour days in a row. Tr. 43-44. It is exacerbated by stress, fluorescent lights and physical activity such as walking up or down stairs three or four times a day. Tr. 45. On days when her symptoms are bad, she cannot do anything other than sleep and watch TV. Tr. 45-46. That happens between two to four days a week. Tr. 46.
Her employer allows her to alter her schedule as her condition requires. Tr. 46. She takes advantage of that flexibility to stay home on a day that she is scheduled to work about once a week. Tr. 46. She has not worked a complete work week as scheduled in the last two years. Tr. 48.
King further testified that her fatigue prevents her from walking more than ten or fifteen minutes at once or standing for more than twenty to thirty minutes at a time. Tr. 50-51. She can lift about ten pounds, but has problems with numbness and lack of coordination in her fingers. Tr. 51. She can do some household chores, such as folding laundry and assisting with grocery shopping, though fatigue prevents her from doing chores after work. Tr. 52-53. When she does housework, she alternates working for half-an-hour and resting for half-an-hour. Tr. 44. Her husband has to help her with tasks that require lifting. Tr. 52-53.
King's husband, Jack Carter King, also testified. He indicated that his wife gets tired easily. Tr. 54. Working exhausts her; it can take her as long as a day to recover from half a day of work. Tr. 55. At least three or four times a month she is "completely down" after working aIN/ND case 3:14-cv-01515-JD-JEM document 23 filed 03/09/16 page 2 of 19 half day. Tr. 55. She has difficulty doing chores around the home, so he handles most of the housework. Tr. 53-54.
Vocational expert Ray Burger (the VE) also testified at the hearing. The ALJ asked him to consider several hypothetical individuals. She first asked him to consider a hypothetical individual with King's age, education and past work experience. Tr. 57. The hypothetical individual could perform no more than light work and was limited to frequent balancing, stooping and kneeling; frequent crawling; frequent climbing of ramps and stairs; occasional climbing of ladders, ropes or scaffolding and occasional crouching. Id. The individual also had to avoid concentrated exposure to extreme temperatures and hazards. Id. The VE stated that such an individual could perform King's past work. Id. He further testified that interior design skills are very specific and would not transfer to other light-exertion work. Id. King's administrative assistant skills, however, would transfer to other sedentary occupations such as a receptionist or data entry position. Id.
The ALJ next asked the VE to consider a hypothetical individual with all of the previously mentioned limitations but who was also limited to occasional posturals. Tr. 58. The individual would also be limited to frequent handling and bilateral fingering, occasional bilateral overhead reach and no more than four hours of standing or walking and six hours of sitting per day. Id. The VE testified that such an individual could work in an administrative assistant, receptionist or data entry position, but could not work in interior design. Id. The ALJ asked if an individual who had such limitations but was restricted to sedentary work could work as an administrative assistant. Id. The VE testified that she could.
The VE further testified that none of the jobs he discussed could be performed by an individual that was off-task for fifteen to twenty percent of the work week due to fatigue, pain or discomfort or by an individual that missed two or more days of work per month. Tr. 59.
Prior to issuing an opinion, the ALJ considered the medical evidence. It shows that King has a history of lupus, Sjogren's syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome and bursitis. Tr. 313.
On January 12, 2010, King presented to her primary care physician, Dr. Walter Anglemeyer, complaining of dry mouth, sores on her tongue and mouth and trouble swallowing. Id. At that visit, Dr. Anglemeyer noted that King had a moderate activity level and did not have bone or joint symptoms, muscle weakness or fatigue. Tr. 313-14. He noted that King had a dry mouth, which he concluded was likely a side effect of lupus and Sjogren's syndrome. Tr. 315.
On February 24, 2010, King went to the emergency department at Elkhart General Hospital for right upper quadrant abdominal and epigastric pain. Tr. 243. She was treated for probable gastritis and released. Tr. 244.
On July 27, 2010, King saw Dr. Nicholas Straniero, her rheumatologist. Dr. Straniero noted that King's medical history included lupus, Sjogren's syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome and migraines. Tr. 286. King reported losing a tooth due to the Sjogren's syndrome, but Dr. Straniero noted that she had an otherwise stable clinical appearance and no other degenerative changes. Id.
On August 25, 2010, King saw Dr. Anglemeyer and asked to change one of her medications, Gabapentin, since it was causing her to have a dry mouth. Tr. 310-11. Dr. Anglemeyer instructed King to gradually stop taking it. He also noted that King did not have fatigue, muscle weakness or bone or joint symptoms. Tr. 310-11. King returned to Dr. Anglemeyer on September 14, 2010 and complained of stomach pains and insomnia. Tr. 307. At that time, she had completely stopped taking Gabapentin and indicated that her dry mouth had improved. Tr. 307. She came back on November 29, 2010, still complaining of stomach pains. Tr. 304. Dr. Anglemeyer referred her to Dr. Gary Cornette, a gastroenterologist. Tr. 305. He also noted that she did not have any joint deformities or abnormalities. Tr. 305.
King consulted with Dr. Cornette on January 6, 2011. Tr. 254. She reported that she had experienced abdominal pain for approximately four months. Id. Dr. Cornette ordered a CT scan, which revealed moderate atrophy in King's left kidney. Tr. 258. He also found her to have malaise. Tr. 255.
King saw Dr. Anglemeyer again on January 11, 2011 due to hip pain and abdominal pain. Tr. 301. King informed him that she could not afford the diagnostics recommended by Dr. Cornette: an "upper and lower scope" and another CT scan. Id. Dr. Anglemeyer noted tenderness in King's left and right hips and found her to have bone and joint symptoms, but found that she was not fatigued. Tr. 302-03.
On January 25, 2011, King saw Dr. Straniero for a rheumatology reassessment. Tr. 285. He found her to be "clinically stable." Id. He also found that she had Raynaud's phenomenon, some signs of bursitis and that her joints showed "scattered mild degenerative change." Id. He noted that she had stopped taking Gabapentin due to problems with oral dryness, which had caused her to lose teeth. Tr. 285.
On May 9, 2011, King saw Dr. Anglemeyer and complained of back pain and depression. Tr. 297. Dr. Anglemeyer found that she had fatigue and bone and joint symptoms. Id.
King returned to Dr. Straniero on July 26, 2011. Tr. 283. At that visit, Dr. Straniero noted that King's lupus and Sjogren's syndrome had "been relatively mild and stable in nature." Id. He found that she had lateral hip pain, but that it responded well to osteopathic manipulations. Id. He also noted that her abdominal pain had resolved and that she did not report any joint swelling, though he observed some degenerative change in her joints. Id.
On January 24, 2012, King saw Dr. Anglemeyer again and complained of back pain (apparently linked to issues with her right hip) and neck pain. Tr. 294. Following a cervical exam, Dr. Anglemeyer noted King had tenderness in her thoracic and lumbar spine. Tr. 295. This time he did not find her to exhibit fatigue, though did note that she had bone and joint symptoms. Tr. 294.
King saw Dr. Straniero on January 31, 2012. Tr. 279. She told him that she had a "good energy level" and was "gradually improving" after switching from working full time to working twenty hours per week. Id. She complained of mild fatigue, though Dr. Straniero found that she did not present with fatigue or Raynaud's phenomenon. Tr. 279-80. King returned to Dr. Straniero on July 31, 2012. She indicated that she felt well with "minor complaints", though reported, among other things, decreasing energy levels and joint stiffness and hip pain that increased with pressure and climbing stairs. Tr. 275. She also complained of oral dryness with accompanying dental damage and tooth loss. Id. Dr. Straniero noted that King's hips were tender and had a reduced internal range of motion, which caused her some pain. Tr. 277. He formulated an assessment and plan for King's lupus, which included ordering several urine and blood tests. Tr. 278.
On October 25, 2012, Dr. Anglemeyer wrote a letter opining on King's condition. Tr. 397. He indicated that she has lupus, Sjogren's syndrome and possible Raynaud's disease. Id. He further stated that "[t]hese diseases are stable and disabling for her . . . [though] tend to wax and wane. During the times that they [flare up], she is unable to work full-time. She does, indeed, experience fatigue and difficulty using her hands during these times." Id. He concluded that part-time work seems to work well for her. Id.
On August 31, 2012, King saw Dr. Frances Dwyer, an agency doctor. Tr. 329. King told Dr. Dwyer that she began experiencing symptoms of lupus in 1994 and was diagnosed with it in 1998. Id. She indicated that she began taking medication for it at that time and her functioning is now "50% improved over baseline", though said that her symptoms had grown worse with time. Id. She also noted issues with Raynaud's syndrome and Sjogren's syndrome. Id. Dr. Dwyer found that King has numerous symptoms, including joint pain associated with lupus flare ups. Tr. 330-31. He also noted that she has headaches precipitated by exhaustion, but did not otherwise mention her fatigue. Id. Ultimately, Dr. Dwyer concluded that King did "not appear to have any significant disability at the time" of her exam. Tr. 332.
Dr. Louise Wunsch, an agency medical consultant, reviewed King's medical records and completed an assessment of her residual functional capacity on September 12, 2012. Tr. 350-57. He found that King has lupus, Sjogren's syndrome, Raynaud's syndrome and bursitis. Tr. 350-51. Dr. Wunsch opined that King was partially credible, but that the record did not support the severity of symptoms she alleged, particularly with regard to her ability to stand and walk for significant periods. Tr. 355. Ultimately, he concluded that King can stand or walk for about six hours in an eight-hour workday and sit for about six hours per eight-hour workday. Tr. 351. Two other agency medical consultants then reviewed the record and affirmed Dr. Wunsch's opinion as written. Tr. 358, 359.
On January 17, 2013, King returned to Dr. Straniero and complained of decreased energy; dry mouth; joint pain in her hands, wrists, hips and knees and fatigue that aggravated the frequency of her migraines. Tr. 362. Dr. Straniero noted that King's dry mouth was placing her dental health at risk and that she had lost six teeth. Tr. 362.
King visited Dr. Anglemeyer shortly thereafter on January 31, 2013 and complained of pain and swelling in her right ankle and elbow, which Dr. Anglemeyer noted may be due to her autoimmune disorders. Tr. 393-94. She did not present with fatigue. Id.
On February 17, 2013, Dr. Straniero authored a medical opinion summarizing King's condition. He found that she suffers from lupus and Sjogren's syndrome and noted that she complained of numerous symptoms including "profound, persistent fatigue, limiting joint pain [and] recurrent migraines aggravated by fatigue." Tr. 360. He further noted that King has flare ups in her condition which exacerbate her symptoms and that she has difficulty focusing due to fatigue. Id. He concluded that "problems associated with her underlying systemic rheumatic disease" prevent King from working full time and that it is difficult for her to work even part time. Id. King saw Dr. Straniero once more on July 31, 2013 and complained of decreasing energy levels; fatigue; recurrent headaches and joint pain in her hands, wrists, hips, knees and lower back. Tr. 398. She reported that she had taken six weeks off of work due to medical difficulties and had tried to return to part-time work, though was having difficulty doing so. Id. Dr. Straniero found her to have fatigue, dry mouth and migraines. Tr. 399.
After reviewing this medical evidence and hearing King's testimony, the ALJ issued a written opinion which upheld the decision to deny King benefits. The ALJ found that King met insured status requirements through December 31, 2017 and had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date. Tr. 19. She further found that King was severely impaired by lupus, Raynaud's syndrome, Sjorgen's syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, bursitis and migraine headaches. Tr. 21. The ALJ concluded, however, that none of King's impairments met or equaled the severity of one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, Appendix 1. She then evaluated King's residual functional capacity (RFC) and found that King was able to:
Tr. 23. In arriving at this RFC, the ALJ assigned little evidentiary weight to the medical opinions of Dr. Anglemeyer and Dr. Straniero. Tr. 26. She found that they were not "supported by the totality of the evidence" and appeared "to be based purely on the claimant's subjective complaints." Id. In contrast, the ALJ gave substantial evidentiary weight to the opinions of the agency medical consultants and agency medical examiner since they were "within the purview of their expertise and consistent with the record as a whole." Id.
The ALJ also found that King's allegations as to the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were "not entirely credible." Tr. 24. The ALJ noted that King (1) frequently reported no pain and a full range of motion in her upper extremities, wrists, fingers, bilateral knees and ankles; (2) had received unemployment benefits after her alleged onset date, which required her to certify that she was physically and mentally able to work full time; (3) was unable to squat, but could walk, sit, had clear speech and had not been to the emergency room for migraines in the past year; (4) was able to engage in several activities of daily living such as dressing herself, weeding her flowerbed and washing windows; (5) only required treatment from Dr. Straniero once every six months and (6) had never been prescribed a cane. Tr. 24-25.
The ALJ then determined that King could perform light work and was capable of returning to her past work as an interior decorator. Tr. 26. As a result, the ALJ determined that King was not disabled. Tr. 27. The Appeals Council denied a request for review of that decision, thereby making it the final determination of the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.981; Schomas v. Colvin, 732 F.3d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 2013).
The Court will affirm the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits if it is supported by substantial evidence. Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 673 (7th Cir. 2008). Substantial evidence consists of "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). It must be "more than a scintilla but may be less than a preponderance." Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 841 (7th Cir. 2007). Thus, even if "reasonable minds could differ" about the disability status of the claimant, the Court will affirm the Commissioner's decision as long as it is adequately supported. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413 (7th Cir. 2008).
In this substantial-evidence determination, the Court does not reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts, decide questions of credibility or substitute the Court's own judgment for that of the Commissioner. Lopez ex rel. Lopez v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 535, 539 (7th Cir. 2003). The Court does, however, critically review the record to ensure that the ALJ's decision is supported by the evidence and contains an adequate discussion of the issues. Id. The ALJ must evaluate both the evidence favoring the claimant as well as the evidence favoring the claim's rejection; she may not ignore an entire line of evidence that is contrary to his findings. Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 887 (7th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). The ALJ must also "articulate at some minimal level his analysis of the evidence" to permit informed review. Id. Ultimately, while the ALJ is not required to address every piece of evidence or testimony presented, she must provide a "logical bridge" between the evidence and his conclusions. Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 475 (7th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, conclusions of law are not entitled to deference. So, if the Commissioner commits an error of law, reversal is required without regard to the volume of evidence in support of his factual findings. Binion v. Chater, 108 F.3d 780, 782 (7th Cir. 1997).
Disability benefits are available only to individuals who are disabled under the terms of the Social Security Act. Estok v. Apfel, 152 F.3d 636, 638 (7th Cir. 1998). A claimant is disabled if he or she is unable "to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment 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. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Social Security regulations contain a five-step test to ascertain whether the claimant has established a disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). These steps require the Court to sequentially determine:
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1176 (7th Cir. 2001). At step three, if the ALJ determines that the claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in the regulations, the Commissioner acknowledges disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). However, if a listing is not met or equaled, the ALJ must assess the claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC) between steps three and four. The RFC is then used to determine whether the claimant can perform past work under step four and whether the claimant can perform other work in society at step five. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The claimant has the burden of proof in steps one through four, while the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the claimant is capable of performing. Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1000 (7th Cir. 2004).
King argues that the ALJ erred in conducting this analysis in three respects. First, she says that the ALJ neglected to address fatigue, her primary symptom. Second, she says that the ALJ did not provide a sufficient justification for not giving controlling weight to the opinions of her treating physicians. Third, she says that the ALJ mistakenly concluded that she was capable of performing her past work as an interior designer without considering how the tools of that trade have changed since King last performed it. The Court will address each of these arguments in turn.
King contends that the ALJ improperly disregarded evidence that she suffered from fatigue and failed to consider that impairment in determining her residual functional capacity. The Commissioner responds that the ALJ addressed fatigue through her treatment of King's credibility. The Commissioner says that the ALJ found several reasons to discredit King, which amounted to a rejection of King's fatigue allegations, since those allegations were predicated on King's testimony (and her physicians' opinions, which the ALJ found to be based exclusively on King's subjective complaints).
The Court finds that the ALJ did not adequately address fatigue. It is well-established that, while the ALJ need not address every piece of evidence in the record, she cannot ignore an entire line of evidence that contradicts her findings. Zurawski, 245 F.3d at 888. Fatigue was a central issue in this case. King testified that it was her worst symptom and that it prevented her from working a full-time schedule. Tr. 44, 46-47. Moreover, she said her part-time work was only possible because her employer provided her with substantial accommodations and a flexible schedule. Tr. 40, 48-49. That is because even working part time she had days where her fatigue was so severe that she could do "absolutely nothing." Tr. 46.
King's testimony also had some support in the record. She complained of fatigue to Dr. Straniero on January 31, 2012 and July 31, 2013. Tr. 279, 398. On the latter date, Dr. Straniero also found her to have fatigue.
Remarkably, the ALJ did not address any of this evidence. After describing King's alleged impairments, the ALJ never again mentions fatigue in her decision. That is inexplicable given that fatigue was King's primary complaint and the main topic at her hearing. It is also contrary to Seventh Circuit precedent. Golembiewski v. Barnhart, 322 F.3d 912, 917 (7th Cir. 2003) (remanding in part because the ALJ ignored evidence of several of the claimant's purported symptoms).
Moreover, the Commissioner's argument that the ALJ implicitly addressed fatigue through her assessment of King's credibility is not well founded for four reasons. First, it is inappropriate to impute any rationale to the ALJ's treatment of fatigue, since there is no indication that she conducted any analysis of that symptom whatsoever. See Parker v. Astrue, 597 F.3d 920, 922 (7th Cir. 2010) (noting that SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87-88 (1943) "forbids an agency's lawyers to defend the agency's decision on grounds that the agency itself has not embraced.").
King also says that the ALJ committed reversible error by giving "little evidentiary weight" to the opinions of her treating physicians, Dr. Anglemeyer and Dr. Straniero. Tr. 26. The Commissioner responds that the ALJ properly discounted these opinions because they were based entirely on King's subjective complaints and were not otherwise consistent with the totality of the evidence.
Treating physician opinions are afforded special deference in disability proceedings. The regulations governing social security proceedings instruct claimants to that effect:
20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Treating physician opinions are not entitled to controlling weight, however, if they are not supported by the objective medical evidence, where they are inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record or where they are internally inconsistent. See Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 871 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Knight v. Chater, 55 F.3d 309, 314 (7th Cir. 1995)). Ultimately, the Court defers to the ALJ's decision to give less than controlling weight to a treating physician opinion so long as the ALJ provides "good reasons" for doing so. Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011).
King's treating physicians, Dr. Straniero and Dr. Anglemeyer, opined that King was unable to work full time due to lupus-related symptoms including fatigue and joint pain. Tr. 360, 397. The ALJ determined that those opinions were not entitled to controlling weight because they were "not supported by the totality of the evidence and appear[ed] to be based purely on the claimant's subjective complaints." The latter observation, as articulated below, is incorrect. The ALJ did not err, however, in concluding that King's physicians' opinions were inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. In particular, the ALJ noted that they were not consistent with the opinions of the agency medical consultants and agency medical examiner. Tr. 26. That was a permissible reason to not give them controlling weight. Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500, 503 (7th Cir. 2004) ("An ALJ may discount a treating physician's medical opinion if it is inconsistent with the opinion of a consulting physician"); Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2008).
But when "an ALJ decides not to give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion, the ALJ is not permitted simply to discard it." Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685, 697 (7th Cir. 2014). Rather, the ALJ is "required by regulation to consider certain factors in order to decide how much weight to give the opinion[.]" Id. These factors, set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, are: (1) the "length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination;" (2) the "[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship;" (3) "[s]upportability;" (4) consistency "with the record as a whole;" and (5) whether the treating physician was a specialist in the relevant area. Id.
The ALJ did not properly apply those factors in weighing Dr. Straniero's and Dr. Anglemeyer's opinions. She did note that Dr. Straniero had described the physical impact of King's condition as only mild and moderate. Tr. 26. That could, perhaps, be interpreted as inconsistent with his conclusion that King could not work full time and thus provide some justification for discounting his opinion. The ALJ also considered a number of instances where King failed to demonstrate certain symptoms that could be associated with lupus. Tr. 24.
But the ALJ discussed none of the evidence that weighed in favor of crediting King's treating physicians' opinions. That included the observations of both of King's physicians that her symptoms wax and wane, tr. 360, 397, which might explain why King sometimes did not present with certain symptoms. See Groskreutz v. Barnhart, 108 F. App'x 412, 418 (7th Cir. 2004) (noting that it was problematic for an ALJ to find a claimant not credible because she did not report pain on some occasions where the ALJ did not consider that the claimant's symptoms waxed and waned and that she did report pain on other occasions). Furthermore, contrary to the findings of the ALJ, Dr. Straniero and Dr. Anglemeyer do not appear to have relied entirely on King's subjective complaints in forming their opinions. Rather, their notes also reflect objective findings including the results of urine and blood tests, tr. 278, lupus-related dry mouth and tooth loss, tr. 315, 362, and joint effusion and degeneration. Tr. 285, 394. Moreover, the ALJ failed to consider the length of King's relationship with Dr. Straniero and Dr. Anglemeyer (which dates to at least 2010), the nature of the treatment she received (which included a hydroxychloroquine prescription for lupus, see, e.g., tr. 296) and Dr. Straniero's specialty as a rheumatologist. See Scrogham, 765 F.3d at 697 (noting an ALJ's error in failing to consider these factors). Given these oversights, the Court "cannot assess whether [the ALJ] appropriately chose not to give much weight to the treating physicians' opinions." Id. at 697-98. On remand, the ALJ should clearly articulate the weight due to King's physicians' opinions and how that determination is justified given all relevant 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 considerations.
Finally, the Court notes that King contests the ALJ's step-four determination that she is able to return to her past work as an interior designer. King argues that she is unable to return to that position since interior design has changed considerably since she last worked in that field in 2010. As such, she contends that she does not possess the required skills for that work under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568.
But, at King's hearing, the vocational expert testified that an individual with King's limitations and experience would be able to work as an interior designer. King did not object to that determination. So, it is improper for her to now raise arguments as to the integrity of the VE's findings to this Court. As numerous cases make clear, "[w]hen no one questions the vocational expert's foundation or reasoning, an ALJ is entitled to accept the vocational expert's conclusion." Donahue v. Barnhart, 279 F.3d 441, 446 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Liskowitz v. Astrue, 559 F.3d 736, 744 (7th Cir. 2009); Barrett v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1065, 1067 (7th Cir. 2004).
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Commissioner denying King's claim for benefits is
SO ORDERED.
