United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21‐2641 TIFFANY POOLE, Plaintiff‐Appellant, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant‐Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:20‐cv‐01336‐JRS‐DLP — James R. Sweeney II, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED FEBRUARY 15, 2022 — DECIDED MARCH 14, 2022 ____________________

Before WOOD, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges. WOOD, Circuit Judge. Tiffany Poole suffers from severe back pain that flares up whenever she walks or sits for longer than about 15 minutes at a time. She applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, but the Social Security Admin‐ istration determined that she did not meet the definition of disability found in the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423(d). The Appeals Council declined review and the district court 2 No. 21‐2641 affirmed the agency’s decision. We conclude, however, that the ALJ’s decision rested on two contradictory findings, and so we reverse and remand this case to the agency for further proceedings. I Poole has a degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine; it causes her severe pain in her lower back and right leg after she either stands or sits for a brief time. She lost her last job as a cashier because her pain made it impossible for her to stand throughout her full shift. Poole also suffers from a learning disability, anxiety, and depression, all of which impair her ability to concentrate, understand, or remember detailed in‐ structions. Now 46 years old, she has only a “marginal educa‐ tion,” meaning sixth grade or less. Poole filed a Title XVI application for SSI benefits in May 2016. These payments are modest—as of January 2022, the av‐ erage federal SSI payment was just $625 per month. See Monthly Statistical Snapshot, January 2022, Soc. Sec. Admin., https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snap‐ shot/2022‐01.pdf. Nonetheless, they can be a lifeline for peo‐ ple who are unable to work. After the agency denied Poole’s claims in 2016, she requested and received a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in January 2019. (During this hearing, Poole amended the alleged onset date of her disabil‐ ity to May 3, 2016, her protective filing date for SSI, and the ALJ dismissed her companion application for Title II disabil‐ ity insurance benefits.) Applying the five‐step inquiry re‐ quired by 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, the ALJ denied her claim. Poole sought review in the district court, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), but it affirmed the ALJ’s decision. No. 21‐2641 3

Because the Appeals Council declined to review Poole’s claim, we review the ALJ’s decision as the Administration’s final word. See Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 865 (7th Cir. 2000). On appeal, we look only to see if the agency’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); in contrast, we assess the ALJ’s legal conclusions de novo, Fast v. Barnhart, 397 F.3d 468, 470 (7th Cir. 2005). II The Social Security Administration uses a five‐step pro‐ cess to evaluate whether someone is eligible for SSI benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). At step one, the ALJ asks whether the claimant is engaging in “substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). If no, then step two asks whether the claimant has a severe mental or physical impairment. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). If yes, then at Step three the ALJ de‐ cides whether the claimant’s condition “meets or