Bettie Burmester v. Nancy Berryhill
920 F.3d 507
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- Bettie Burmester applied for SSDI alleging disability from September 2009 due to degenerative disc/joint disease, rheumatoid arthritis, knee disorders, chronic pain, and depression; application initially denied and remanded after appeal.
- Administrative hearings held in 2012 and 2014; claimant testified to daily pain, use of opioid pain meds and Remicade, need for a cane, and assistance with household tasks from family.
- ALJ found claimant unable to perform past relevant work but assessed an RFC for light work with physical and non‑exertional limits (no ladders/overhead reach restrictions, limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks with minimal interpersonal contact).
- ALJ discounted some treating-source opinions as inconsistent with objective findings, daily activities, and other medical evidence; he relied in part on consultative examiner Dr. Meyers and state agency reviewers.
- Vocational expert testified that given the RFC there existed significant light, unskilled jobs in the national economy; Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ credibility analysis / use of boilerplate | ALJ relied on boilerplate credibility language and overemphasized daily activities to discredit testimony | Boilerplate alone is not fatal; ALJ gave specific record‑based reasons and detailed medical discussion | Court: ALJ’s credibility determination supported by substantial evidence; not patently wrong |
| Concentration, persistence, pace (CPP) limitations omitted from RFC/VE hypothetical | ALJ failed to translate moderate CPP finding into RFC and VE question | Consultative narrative and state review indicated concentration was manageable; VE/hypo matched narrative limits | Court: No error—ALJ reasonably relied on Dr. Meyers’ narrative that claimant could maintain concentration for work |
| Weight given to treating physicians’ restrictive opinions | ALJ improperly rejected treating doctors in favor of non‑treating sources | Treating opinions were internally inconsistent and contradicted by exam findings and other evidence | Court: ALJ permissibly discounted treating opinions and explained reasons |
| RFC sufficiency and hypothetical to VE | RFC and hypothetical did not capture all limitations supported by record | RFC incorporated limitations supported by medical evidence and consultative opinion given great weight | Court: RFC and VE hypothetical adequate to support step‑five finding of jobs available |
Key Cases Cited
- Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805 (7th Cir.) (standard for appellate review of ALJ decisions)
- Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869 (7th Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Lopez ex rel. Lopez v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 535 (7th Cir.) (court will not reweigh evidence)
- Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408 (7th Cir.) (affirm where substantial evidence supports ALJ)
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir.) (boilerplate credibility language not automatically fatal)
- Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809 (7th Cir.) (RFC and VE hypothetical must include supported limitations)
- DeCamp v. Berryhill, 916 F.3d 671 (7th Cir.) (limitations in checkboxes vs narrative and adequacy of hypothetical)
- Johansen v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 283 (7th Cir.) (permissible to rely on medical expert to translate limitations into RFC)
- Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744 (7th Cir.) (controlling weight standard for treating physicians)