Alvarado v. Colvin
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16215
7th Cir.2016Background
- Eric Alvarado, born 1967, received childhood disability benefits and SSI beginning in 1993 for severe impairments including a learning disorder; eligibility was affirmed in 1999.
- In 2004 the Social Security Administration determined his disability had ended and stopped benefits; administrative hearings and an ALJ on remand again found his disability had ended.
- The ALJ concluded Alvarado still had a severe learning disorder but retained capacity for simple, nonpublic, demonstrated (not complex or changing) tasks.
- ALJ relied on medical records, lay testimony, Alvarado’s activities (driving, college degree, work at a family flower shop), and a vocational expert who identified jobs available in Illinois (e.g., house cleaner, car washer, kitchen helper).
- ALJ discounted parts of Dr. Dalfiume’s opinion (non-treating, inconsistent, based on subjective reports, not a vocational expert) and discounted some lay testimony (mother and co-worker credibility harmed by admissions of dishonesty).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ exceed the remand order by considering pre-1999 evidence? | Remand barred evaluation of pre-1999 evidence. | Remand directed comparison of pre- and post-1999 evidence; ALJ permitted to evaluate earlier records. | ALJ did not violate the remand; comparing earlier evidence was required. |
| Was there substantial evidence to terminate benefits (i.e., medical improvement)? | Alvarado: learning disorder and slow processing preclude competitive work; many records support disability. | ALJ: evidence shows improvement to permit simple, nonpublic, demonstrated tasks; vocational expert identified jobs. | Substantial evidence supports ALJ’s finding that disability ended for purposes of benefits. |
| Did the ALJ properly weigh Dr. Dalfiume’s opinion? | ALVARADO: ALJ improperly gave Dr. Dalfiume no weight. | ALJ: opinion was considered but given less than controlling weight due to non-treatment relationship, inconsistencies, reliance on subjective reports, and lack of vocational expertise. | ALJ permissibly discounted parts of the opinion for articulated reasons. |
| Were lay witnesses and vocational expert treated properly? | Alvarado: lay testimony and processing-speed issues show inability to perform jobs; VE testimony omitted some limitations. | ALJ: discounted interested/unreliable lay testimony; VE’s testimony incorporated ALJ-found limits and supported available jobs. | Court affirmed credibility determinations and found VE testimony substantial; any omitted limitations were not shown to be disabling for identified jobs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tumminaro v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 629 (7th Cir.) (standard of review where Appeals Council denies review)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir.) (no reweighing evidence on review)
- Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704 (7th Cir.) (hired expert status not dispositive)
- Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500 (7th Cir.) (ALJ may discount opinion inconsistent with other evidence)
- White v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 654 (7th Cir.) (permissible to discount opinion based on subjective complaints)
- Loveless v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 502 (7th Cir.) (whether claimant can work is administrative, not medical, question)
- Curvin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 645 (7th Cir.) (review of credibility findings)
- Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833 (7th Cir.) (vocational expert testimony as substantial evidence when based on ALJ findings)
- Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503 (7th Cir.) (ALJ required to include only supported limitations in hypotheticals)
- Spiva v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 346 (7th Cir.) (daily activities not dispositive but relevant to credibility)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir.) (caution about equating daily activities with work capacity)