Anne Hill v. Carolyn Colvin
807 F.3d 862
7th Cir.2015Background
- Anne Hill, 56, stopped heavy factory work (13+ years) and applied for DIB and SSI alleging multiple musculoskeletal impairments, including total left hip replacement and left shoulder osteoarthritis, with onset June 2011.
- Medical records show left hip replacement (May 2011), shoulder tendinopathy/tears, intermittent neck/back complaints, limited conservative treatment (no ongoing narcotics, limited specialist care) and state-agency examiners who found capacity for a limited range of light work.
- Hill testified she can sit/stand only ~10–15 minutes without breaks, lift 10–15 pounds with right arm (much less with left), and has significant shoulder/neck pain; friend corroborated limited ambulation.
- ALJ found severe impairments (left hip replacement, left shoulder osteoarthritis), discounted Hill’s complaints about neck/back pain and overall credibility, adopted a Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) allowing light or sedentary unskilled work, and denied benefits; Appeals Council and district court affirmed.
- Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, concluding the ALJ’s credibility analysis was flawed and the vocational expert (VE) testimony was unreliable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly assessed Hill’s credibility about limits from neck/back pain | Hill: ALJ ignored plausible explanations for conservative treatment (cost, doctor’s concern about addiction) and improperly discounted testimony absent specialist visits | Commissioner: Lack of corroborating medical evidence and limited treatment supports adverse credibility finding | Reversed — ALJ erred by ignoring explanations for sparse treatment, "playing doctor," and misusing work history to discredit claimant; errors not harmless |
| Whether ALJ impermissibly ‘‘played doctor’’ by requiring specific diagnoses (nerve root compression, stenosis) to credit pain | Hill: ALJ improperly relied on absence of certain diagnoses to reject reported limitations | Commissioner: Argues objective records lack those findings, supporting ALJ’s skepticism | Reversed — court holds ALJ improperly speculated beyond the medical record; cannot demand specific diagnostic findings to reject subjective pain testimony |
| Whether claimant’s desire or prior ability to work undermines credibility of current disability claim | Hill: Prior work and wish to work are consistent with disability and long work record supports credibility | Commissioner: Continued past work suggests long-standing condition and ability to work | Reversed — court rejects treating work history/desire to work as evidence of exaggeration; degenerative conditions may worsen over time |
| Whether vocational expert testimony supported denial (job availability and limitations re: left extremity) | Hill: VE relied on unspecified personal experience, misapplied DOT, and gave unreliable job numbers for occupations claimant could perform | Commissioner: VE testimony establishes significant numbers of suitable jobs | Reversed (in part) — court (and concurring judge) expressed serious doubts about VE’s methodology and job-number data; VE testimony was unreliable and should be better substantiated on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2013) (ALJ decision becomes Commissioner’s final decision when Appeals Council denies review)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2012) (warning against equating daily activities with ability to work full-time)
- Engstrand v. Colvin, 788 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2015) (ALJ may not "play doctor" by making medical findings beyond the record)
- Goins v. Colvin, 764 F.3d 677 (7th Cir. 2014) (criticizing ALJ medical speculation)
- Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2014) (requirement to consider claimant explanations for limited medical treatment)
- Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (ALJ must consider inability to afford treatment when evaluating conservative care)
- Hall v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015) (claimant’s testimony about symptoms cannot be disregarded merely due to lack of medical corroboration)
- McKinzey v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 2011) (harmless-error standard for ALJ mistakes requires confidence ALJ would reach same result on remand)
- Herrmann v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 1110 (7th Cir. 2014) (VE must explain basis of experience relied upon; unexplained reliance is inadequate)
- Browning v. Colvin, 766 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2014) (criticizing speculative VE testimony and methodology)