Alejandro Moreno v. Nancy Berryhill
882 F.3d 722
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Moreno injured his back in 2006, developed chronic lumbar radiculopathy, and has comorbid diabetes, hypertension, and obesity; he has extensive mental-health treatment notes documenting depression, sleep disturbance, memory and concentration problems, and intermittent anger/outbursts.
- He regularly treated with psychologist Dr. Enrique Gonzalez (CBT) and psychiatrist Dr. Walter Pedemonte from 2008–2013; treatment notes after 2007 show worsening/additional symptoms (sleep loss, suicidal ideation, anger outbursts).
- A 2007 nonexamining consultant, Dr. Margaret Wharton, found moderate limits in concentration, persistence, and pace but did not identify sleep disturbance or suicidal ideation and concluded mostly mild social limits.
- An ALJ in 2014 relied heavily on Dr. Wharton’s 2007 assessment, adopted a residual functional capacity limiting Moreno to simple, routine work with occasional public interaction, and the vocational expert identified jobs Moreno could perform.
- The Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed; the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether the ALJ improperly relied on an outdated mental-health assessment and whether the ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational expert failed to capture limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by relying on an outdated nonexamining mental-health assessment | Moreno: later treating notes contained new, significant evidence (sleep disturbance, suicidal ideation, anger outbursts) that could have changed the consultant’s opinion | Commissioner: later notes showed improvement and would not have changed Dr. Wharton’s conclusions | Reversed: later treating records could have changed consultant’s conclusions; remand for updated mental-health assessment |
| Whether the ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational expert omitted limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace | Moreno: hypothetical did not include those limitations and thus vocational testimony is unreliable | Commissioner: limiting to simple, routine, low-stress work reasonably accommodated moderate deficits | Reversed: hypothetical failed to account for documented limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace; vocational testimony unreliable |
| Whether ALJ can interpret raw medical records without updated expert input | Moreno: ALJ improperly “played doctor” by relying on his own reading rather than a new expert opinion | Commissioner: existing record supported ALJ’s reading that treatment showed improvement | Reversed/remanded: ALJ must rely on expert medical assessment when later records may change prior conclusions |
| Whether omission of Dr. Wharton’s recommended one- to two-step limitation was reversible error | Moreno: ALJ omitted consultant’s recommendation when formulating hypothetical | Commissioner: not argued as primary error on appeal | Not addressed on merits due to remand for updated assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685 (7th Cir.) (standard of review for Appeals Council denials and ALJ decisions)
- Stage v. Colvin, 812 F.3d 1121 (7th Cir.) (remand required when later diagnostic evidence could have changed a reviewing physician’s opinion)
- Goins v. Colvin, 764 F.3d 677 (7th Cir.) (ALJ may not rely on stale or incomplete medical evidence; new objective tests may require reassessment)
- O'Connor-Spinner v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 614 (7th Cir.) (vocational expert hypotheticals must reflect concentration, persistence, and pace limitations; best practice is to include them explicitly)
- Yurt v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 850 (7th Cir.) (limitations to simple, routine tasks do not necessarily capture deficiencies in concentration, persistence, and pace)