Cheryl Beardsley v. Carolyn Colvin
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13202
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Cheryl Beardsley (49) injured her left knee (meniscal tears, ruptured ligament) with worsening osteoarthritis and obesity; she declined surgery and received injections.
- She applied for SSDI and SSI; consultative examiner Dr. Larry Banyash (examined claimant) limited her to sedentary work; non-examining reviewer Dr. M. Brill found capacity for light work (stand/walk ~6 hours/day).
- ALJ found severe impairments (knee pain, depression, personality disorder, anxiety, obesity), limited her from past work, but concluded she could perform a range of light work and denied benefits; district court affirmed.
- The ALJ relied primarily on (1) claimant’s reported daily activities/care for her mother, (2) Dr. Brill’s file-review opinion, and (3) purportedly conservative treatment and refusal of surgery to justify crediting light-work capacity over Banyash’s sedentary limitation.
- Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the ALJ failed to build a logical, well-supported bridge when discounting the agency’s examining physician and when relying on daily activities and unexplored reasons for declining surgery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly discounted agency examining physician (Dr. Banyash) | ALJ improperly gave Banyash only some weight despite his in-person exam and sedentary RFC | ALJ favored non-examining Dr. Brill whose opinion was consistent with record | Reversed: ALJ gave inadequate reasons to prefer Brill over Banyash; must provide valid justification when rejecting examining physician |
| Whether claimant’s reported daily activities support finding she can do light work | Beardsley’s activities were limited, largely sedentary, and corroborated by her mother and medical evidence | ALJ viewed activities (care for mother, shopping, chores) as inconsistent with disability | Reversed: ALJ overstated the relevance/physical comparability of those activities to full-time work and failed to probe trivial inconsistencies |
| Whether ALJ permissibly relied on conservative treatment and failure to have surgery | Beardsley had reasons (worsening pain later, uninsured/cost concerns) and ALJ failed to inquire into reasons for refusing surgery | ALJ treated lack of surgery and limited treatment as evidence of non-disability | Reversed: ALJ legally required to explore reasons for lack of treatment before drawing adverse inference |
| Whether substantial evidence supported RFC for light work and denial of benefits | RFC not supported because key evidence (Banyash, activity limits, treatment context) pointed to sedentary work | ALJ argued overall record and Brill supported light-work RFC | Reversed and remanded: ALJ failed to build an accurate logical bridge from record to RFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2000) (ALJ must build a logical bridge between evidence and conclusion)
- Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2003) (examining physician’s opinion cannot be rejected without substantial-evidence reasons)
- Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001) (ALJ must build accurate logical bridge and properly assess credibility)
- Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2004) (subjective pain complaints may not be discounted absent valid reasons)
- Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (ALJ must explore reasons for failure/infrequency of treatment before drawing negative inference)
- Mendez v. Barnhart, 439 F.3d 360 (7th Cir. 2006) (home activities differ materially from work demands; caution equating them)
- Gentle v. Barnhart, 430 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2005) (claimants may perform heroic efforts caring for family that are not indicative of work capacity)
- Blakes v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2003) (requirement of logical bridge for meaningful judicial review)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (standard for substantial evidence review)