Carlson, Mark v. Saul, Andrew
3:20-cv-00871
| W.D. Wis. | Dec 13, 2021Background:
- Mark Carlson (applied Feb. 1, 2018) alleges disability from multiple sclerosis (onset Aug. 30, 2016); diagnosed Sept. 2016. Receives Avonex, Baclofen, fluoxetine, and amantadine.
- Repeated complaints in records of severe fatigue, hand/finger cramping and limited dexterity interfering with daily tasks and prior work as a cook.
- Treating physician Dr. Michael Mahan reported plaintiff could only sustain ~1.5 hours of work/day and was not employable in restaurant work; noted worsening fatigue and bilateral hand pain.
- Neuropsychological testing (171 minutes) in Jan/Feb 2018 showed isolated memory difficulties but not dementia; later testing and clinician notes described fatigue as sometimes stable.
- ALJ found MS and obesity severe, assessed an RFC for a reduced range of light work without handling/fingering limits, and concluded plaintiff could perform past relevant work (step four) and alternative jobs (step five). Appeals Council denied review.
- District court reversed and remanded limited to the ALJ’s inadequate treatment of plaintiff’s fatigue and hand/fingering limitations; any error about the VE’s nationwide job estimates was harmless.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated plaintiff's subjective complaints of fatigue and hand/finger limitations | Carlson: ALJ ignored consistent reports and objective evidence of worsening fatigue and cramping that would limit handling/fingering and full‑time work | Kijakazi: ALJ permissibly found plaintiff's symptom reports inconsistent with record (stable MRIs, conservative treatment, normal strength/grip findings) | Court: ALJ failed to build a logical bridge; did not explain how normal strength/grip tests contradicted reports of rapid cramping/limited endurance. Remand required. |
| Whether ALJ properly considered and weighed treating physician Dr. Mahan's opinions | Carlson: Dr. Mahan’s assessments of limited stamina and hand problems were entitled to consideration and are consistent with records | Kijakazi: ALJ reasonably found state‑agency reviewers persuasive and Dr. Mahan’s opinions inconsistent with testing and exams | Court: ALJ did not adequately explain why she discounted Dr. Mahan given supportability/consistency factors; remand required to address these opinions. |
| Whether ALJ erred by not probing the vocational expert’s methodology for nationwide job numbers | Carlson: VE’s nationwide numbers unsupported and ALJ should have inquired | Kijakazi: Any error is harmless because ALJ resolved case at step four (past relevant work) and did not need step five | Court: Held harmless error; remand not required on this ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (defines substantial‑evidence standard)
- Moon v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must build a logical bridge between evidence and conclusion)
- Winsted v. Berryhill, 923 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2019) (review the ALJ’s opinion as a whole)
- Summers v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2017) (credibility findings get deference unless patently wrong)
- Gebauer v. Saul, [citation="801 F. App'x 404"] (7th Cir. 2020) (ALJ need not reach step five if claimant can perform past work)