ALJ made many errors at Step 5. A. THE ALJ’S DETERMINATION AS TO THE LISTING LEVEL OF IMPAIRMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE The Claimant argues the ALJ erred in concluding his mental impairments did not satisfy the Listing of Im pairments under Listing 12.04 and substance abuse 12.09. Claimant asserts the ALJ erred by not citing Dr. Hudspeth’s whole opinion, by discounting any significant change in Claimant’s life between Dr. Gil’s examination and Dr. Miller’s examination, by finding the Claimant’s mental impairment is not severe, and posing a hypothetical to the VE which did not incorporate all of Claimant’s limitations. The ALJ articulated a legitimate reason for not finding the Claimant had a listing level of impairment. Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The ALJ reasoned the Claimant did not have a
holding the record must demonstrate that the alj considered all of the evidence and the alj must discuss  the evidence supporting his decision  the uncontroverted evidence he chooses not to rely upon and significantly probative evidence he rejects recognizing that an alj must minimally articulate his reasons for crediting or rejecting evidence of disability holding the alj does not have to specifically refer to every piece of evidence so long as the decision is not a broad rejection that is insufficient to permit a court to conclude that the alj considered the claimants medical condition as a whole holding the alj is not required to address every piece of evidence but he must articulate some legitimate reason for his decision holding that an administrator need not address each piece of evidence