Angela Farrell v. Michael Astrue
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18186
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Farrell, a 34-year-old woman, applied for disability insurance benefits for multiple impairments including fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, migraines, and chronic pain.
- ALJ denied benefits; Appeals Council remanded for reconsideration; new fibromyalgia evidence emerged but was not properly considered.
- Treating physician Dr. Beyer diagnosed longstanding mental and physical limitations; other physicians offered more optimistic, non-treating opinions.
- New diagnostic evidence from Dr. Loyd confirming fibromyalgia emerged before the ALJ hearing and was not properly evaluated by the Appeals Council.
- ALJ’s RFC analysis largely discounted Dr. Beyer’s treating-opinion evidence and relied on the state-reviewing physicians’ views; the Appeals Council decision thus faced legal error, warranting remand.
- Court reverses and remands to the agency for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Appeals Council erred by not considering new fibromyalgia evidence | Farrell’s Loyd fibromyalgia diagnosis was new and material | Council found evidence not qualifying or sufficient to change the outcome | Yes, error; remand required |
| Whether the ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Beyer’s treating-physician opinions | RFC should reflect extensive treating-history evidence | State doctors’ opinions supported the RFC | Yes, error; remand for proper evaluation of treating-source evidence |
| Whether the RFC and related hypotheticals adequately reflect Farrell’s limitations | RFC incorporates all credible limitations, including mental health | RFC relies on non-treating opinions and lacks full basis | Remand necessary to reassess RFC with proper medical evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Perkins v. Chater, 107 F.3d 1290 (7th Cir. 1997) (review of new-evidence regulation is de novo; otherwise Council discretion governs)
- Rice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2004) (whether Appeals Council erred in applying new-evidence standard)
- Scivally v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1070 (7th Cir. 1992) (rejection of new-evidence ruling and need for proper analysis)
- Castile v. Astrue, 617 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2010) (step-two severity and its relation to RFC assessment)
- Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2003) (error when ALJ disregards treating history without explanation)
- EEOC v. Yellow Freight Sys., 253 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 2001) (intermittent functioning can preclude steady employment; RFC evaluation must account for it)
- Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 2011) (discussing ambiguity in Appeals Council treatment of new evidence)