Beck v. Social Security Administration
1:19-cv-01228
E.D. Wis.Sep 11, 2020Background
- Beck injured his back and left shoulder at work in March 2015, underwent L5–S1 discectomy/laminectomy (Dec 2015), left rotator cuff repair (Mar 2016), and a repeat back surgery (Nov 2017).
- He alleged severe, disabling back and shoulder pain, reported very limited sitting/standing/walking and required family assistance for ADLs; attempted sheltered work in 2017 but left due to pain.
- Medical record: imaging showed recurrent L5–S1 disc extrusion and degenerative changes; examinations often noted limited lumbar range of motion and tenderness but generally normal strength, reflexes, sensation, and no muscle atrophy; some consultative examiners raised concerns about poor effort/malingering.
- Agency reviewers issued differing RFC opinions (light/medium vs. sedentary); two consultative physical exams informed the record (Drs. Bernabe and Butler); treating clinician Dr. Michalski briefly noted the claimant was “totally incapacitated” for a short period.
- ALJ found severe impairments but not Listing-level; adopted an RFC limiting Beck to sedentary work with occasional postural limits and a sit/stand option; VE testified other jobs existed; ALJ denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred in evaluating Listings (esp. §1.04) | Beck says surgeries and continuing pain meet Listing 1.04(A) (nerve root compression) | Commissioner: record lacks required objective findings (motor loss with sensory/reflex loss, positive SLR) and agency consultants found no Listing-level impairment | Court: No error — Beck failed to identify record evidence satisfying Listing criteria; ALJ reasonably found no Listing-level impairment |
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted Beck’s symptom statements | Beck contends pain alone can satisfy functional limitations and ALJ improperly discredited his symptom testimony | Commissioner: ALJ applied two-step SSR 16-3p analysis, considered objective findings, daily activities, treatment response, and evidence of poor effort; RFC reflects partial credit for symptoms | Court: ALJ’s evaluation was supported by substantial evidence and not patently wrong; RFC appropriately incorporated limitations (sedentary + sit/stand) |
| Whether ALJ gave insufficient weight to treating physician (Dr. Michalski) | Beck urges greater weight to treating provider’s statement of incapacity and argues it supports Listing/greater RFC limits | Commissioner: treating note was conclusory, temporally limited, lacked functional detail, and was inconsistent with other exam findings; ALJ permissibly gave it little weight | Court: ALJ permissibly discounted the treating note for stated reasons; no reversible error in weighing opinions |
| Whether ALJ failed to develop full record / should have obtained medical advisor | Beck argues record warranted further development or contact with treating doctor | Commissioner: record included two consultative exams and agency reviews; claimant had counsel and made no request to recontact; ALJ need only supplement when evidence is inadequate | Court: No duty to further develop; record was adequate and Beck (represented) did not request additional development |
Key Cases Cited
- Maggard v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 376 (7th Cir. 1999) (to meet or equal a Listing claimant must satisfy all listed criteria)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (defines "substantial evidence" as what a reasonable mind accepts to support a conclusion)
- Jeske v. Saul, 955 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2020) (Court will uphold ALJ if correct legal standards and supported by substantial evidence)
- Curvin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2015) (review examines the ALJ’s opinion as a whole for gaps/contradictions)
- Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306 (7th Cir. 2012) (ALJ need not write a complete evaluation of every piece of evidence)
- Rice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2004) (ALJ need only minimally articulate reasons for rejecting evidence)
- Scheck v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2004) (ALJ may rely on agency medical experts)
- Thomas v. Colvin, 745 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2014) (RFC is for the ALJ to decide, not treating physicians)