Danny McFadden v. Nancy Berryhill
17-1597
| 7th Cir. | Jan 8, 2018Background
- McFadden applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI, alleging disabling knee, back, and other pain after a 2007 bus accident; he amended onset date to his 50th birthday (Aug. 23, 2009).
- Treating physician Dr. Okusanya completed a May 9, 2013 checkbox form asserting severe limitations (e.g., sitting/standing 15 minutes, 2 hours total; lift 5 lbs; never stoop; frequent leg elevation) with minimal explanation.
- Agency consultative and reviewing physicians (Drs. Lun, Khorshidi, Ordman) concluded McFadden was capable of light work with substantially greater standing, walking, and lifting capacity than Dr. Okusanya asserted.
- At the hearing McFadden testified to limited standing, need to elevate legs, reliance on a cane, and past substance use; the ALJ found his testimony not entirely credible, noting inconsistent treatment and drug use.
- ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Okusanya (not supported by objective evidence, inconsistent with record), great weight to consultative opinions, found an RFC for limited light work with sit/stand option and cane, and concluded McFadden could perform other jobs; Appeals Council denied review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted treating physician opinion (controlling weight) | McFadden: ALJ gave insufficient reasons and failed to follow treating-physician rule | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly discounted unsubstantiated checkbox opinion as unsupported and inconsistent with other evidence | Affirmed — ALJ reasonably found opinion unsupported by objective evidence and inconsistent with other substantial evidence |
| Whether ALJ failed to consider erosion of occupational base under SSR 83-12 | McFadden: ALJ should have addressed erosion analysis | Commissioner: forfeiture/forfeited by plaintiff at district court | Forfeited by plaintiff (concedes), not considered on appeal |
| Whether Appeals Council erred by refusing to consider additional medical records | McFadden: Records were new and material and would change outcome | Commissioner: Records predated hearing and were available, thus not new; even if considered, they are immaterial | Affirmed — records were not material and in fact supported ALJ's credibility finding |
| Whether ALJ had duty to recontact treating physician for clarification | McFadden: ALJ should have solicited more information per Barnett | Commissioner: ALJ not required to recontact; need not do so every time | Affirmed — ALJ not required to recontact; adequately evaluated explanations given |
Key Cases Cited
- Bates v. Colvin, 736 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir.) (treating-physician opinions must be supported and consistent with record to be controlling)
- Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929 (7th Cir.) (discussing weight of unexplained checkbox opinions and context of nontreating vs treating providers)
- Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419 (7th Cir.) (medical experts must point to objective evidence to explain worsening prognosis)
- Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118 (7th Cir.) (ALJ may confront evidence and need not "cherry pick" when supported by record)
- Barnett v. Barnhart, 381 F.3d 664 (7th Cir.) (ALJ may need to develop record under some circumstances)
- Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503 (7th Cir.) (ALJ not required to recontact medical source every time she evaluates an opinion)
- Farrell v. Astrue, 692 F.3d 767 (7th Cir.) (Appeals Council boilerplate denial may require remand if new material evidence was wrongly rejected)
- Stepp v. Colvin, 795 F.3d 711 (7th Cir.) (defines materiality standard for evidence submitted to Appeals Council)
- Perkins v. Chater, 107 F.3d 1290 (7th Cir.) (standard for whether Appeals Council should consider additional evidence)