Brenda Wilder v. Kilolo Kijakazi, 22 F.4th 644

Background

Brenda Wilder (born 1970) applied for SSDI asserting disabling cerebellar ataxia, hip/knee osteoarthritis, post‑lumbar fusion/laminectomy and related balance/gait problems; she stopped working in October 2015.
Medical record: two back surgeries (2016 fusion; 2017 laminectomy), ongoing dizziness/imbalance, intermittent cane use, physical therapy, and mixed exam findings (tandem/heel‑toe gait described as "wobbly" by some providers but several notes of "normal gait" and periods without reported falls).
Treating specialists disagreed: Dr. Akan restricted work near machinery and commercial driving; Dr. McComis repeatedly cleared limited return to work (no lifting >10 lbs, no repetitive bending/stooping).
At the ALJ hearing counsel initially conceded Wilder did not meet or equal any Listing; later suggested a possible equivalence argument and asked the ALJ to consider sending an interrogatory to a medical expert.
ALJ found severe impairments but concluded Wilder did not meet or equal Listing 11.17(a), assessed an RFC for sedentary work with limitations, and denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed.
On appeal to the Seventh Circuit Wilder challenged (1) the ALJ’s step‑three analysis as to Listing 11.17(a), (2) the refusal to obtain a medical‑expert opinion on equivalence, and (3) the adverse credibility evaluation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wilder met or medically equaled Listing 11.17(a) (neurodegenerative disorders causing extreme limitation standing/balance)	Wilder contends her balance, falls, and need for an assistive device satisfy the Listing or at least medically equal it	Commissioner: records show only intermittent cane use, ability to stand/walk short distances, and no evidence of inability to ambulate effectively; plaintiff bears step‑three burden	Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence that Wilder did not meet or medically equal Listing 11.17(a) (two‑cane/walker requirement not met; record inconsistent with "extreme" limitation)
Whether ALJ was required to obtain a medical‑expert opinion on medical equivalence	Wilder argues an ME was needed to assess equivalence to Listing 11.17(a)	Commissioner: ALJ may request ME input but is not required when the evidence does not reasonably support equivalence (SSR 17‑2p)	Court: Affirmed — ALJ not required to obtain ME because evidence did not reasonably support a finding of medical equivalence
Whether ALJ improperly discounted Wilder’s subjective symptom testimony (frequency of falls, therapy attendance)	Wilder argues ALJ improperly inferred she lied about falls and faulted her for not attending therapy without exploring ability to pay	Commissioner: ALJ permissibly relied on inconsistent statements in treatment records, objective findings, and treating physicians’ notes; any error about therapy attendance was harmless	Court: Affirmed — credibility finding not patently wrong; ALJ’s misstatement about therapy attendance was harmless error

Key Cases Cited

Butler v. Kijakazi, 4 F.4th 498 (7th Cir. 2021) (standard of review and substantial‑evidence framework for ALJ decisions)
Barnett v. Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2004) (ALJ must provide more than perfunctory analysis when considering whether condition meets or equals a listing)
O'Connor‑Spinner v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2010) (ALJ must build a logical bridge from evidence to conclusions)
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (claimant bears burden to prove disability at steps one through four)
Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990) (listings are to be applied strictly; meeting only some criteria is insufficient)
Vance v. Berryhill, 860 F.3d 1114 (8th Cir. 2017) (failure to mention a listing is not reversible when substantial evidence supports the conclusion)
Stepp v. Colvin, 795 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2015) (credibility determinations upheld unless patently wrong)
Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306 (7th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing subjective symptom evaluations)
Lauer v. Apfel, 169 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 1999) (Social Security Rulings bind ALJs)
Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352 (2021) (procedural points on claimant obligations in administrative process)
Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000) (Social Security proceedings are inquisitorial rather than adversarial)