Betty Brown v. Carolyn W. Colvin
845 F.3d 247
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Betty Brown (5'5", >300 lbs for >10 years) applied for SSDI and SSI claiming disabling back pain and obesity; last worked in 2004.
- Medical history: multiple car accidents (2003–2007), chronic back pain, increasing oxycodone from 30 mg to 240 mg daily, treatment primarily by Dr. William Shannon.
- ALJ found severe impairments: back pain, obesity, migraines; RFC: sedentary work with a sit/stand option (no more than 30 minutes at a time).
- ALJ relied on a vocational expert (VE) to identify six jobs (assembler, order clerk, office helper, video surveillance monitor, greeter/attendant, telephone solicitor) and denied benefits; district court affirmed.
- On appeal, Brown challenged (1) the ALJ’s consideration of obesity, (2) rejection of treating physician Dr. Shannon’s opinions, and (3) reliance on the VE’s testimony/DOT conflicts.
- Seventh Circuit: affirmed ALJ’s obesity analysis and most VE-related issues (forfeited or harmless), but vacated and remanded for improper application of the Treating Physician Rule regarding Dr. Shannon’s opinions about sitting/standing and need for lying down.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of ALJ's consideration of obesity | ALJ acknowledged obesity but failed to link obesity to severity of pain/medication needs | ALJ repeatedly considered obesity, cited records, and limited Brown to sedentary work because of obesity+back pain | Affirmed — ALJ adequately considered obesity at a minimal level |
| Treating Physician Rule (Dr. Shannon's sit/stand/absence opinions) | Dr. Shannon's opinions reflect longitudinal treatment notes and medication escalation; ALJ improperly substituted his own judgment | ALJ said opinions unsupported by treatment notes and contradicted by Brown's activities | Reversed — ALJ erred; must reevaluate treating physician opinions and provide good reasons if not controlling |
| VE testimony vs. DOT (greeter/attendant conflict) | VE deviated from DOT without adequate explanation | VE relied on placement experience; ALJ accepted testimony without follow-up | Remand not required on this point (error found but harmless because other job numbers were sufficient) |
| Reliability/verification of VE job-number data | VE failed to identify sources for job-number estimates | Issue largely forfeited by failure to object at hearing; insufficiently raised on appeal | No reversible error (forfeited or harmless) |
Key Cases Cited
- Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. 2008) (standard of review; substantial evidence)
- Castile v. Astrue, 617 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2010) (obesity must be considered with other impairments)
- Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2000) (treating physician opinion controlling if supported and consistent)
- Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2010) (factors for weighing treating physician opinions)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2012) (limits of equating daily activities with ability to work full time)
- Liskowitz v. Astrue, 559 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2009) (forfeiture for failure to object to VE testimony at hearing)
- Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2008) (VE/DOT conflicts require a reasonable explanation)
- Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2005) (encouragement to assign new ALJ on remand)