Danny Ray v. Nancy Berryhill
915 F.3d 486
7th Cir.2019Background
- Danny Ray applied for SSI and DIB alleging multiple severe physical and mental impairments (diabetes, degenerative disc disease, obesity, kidney disease, hypertension, anxiety, depression) and claimed he stopped working because his hands, feet, and hips made duties painful.
- Ray’s past relevant work included a school bus monitor position assisting disabled children: lifting children, securing wheelchairs, and monitoring behavior; he testified he could no longer perform those duties.
- Medical evidence included consultative and agency exams: psychologists found moderate limits in attention/concentration; an examining psychologist noted learning and anxiety disorders and poor reading/math skills; an agency physician identified exertional limits and a positive supine straight-leg raise.
- The ALJ found Ray only partially credible, assigned an RFC for light work with ability to perform semiskilled tasks and attend sufficiently, and concluded he could perform his past work as a school bus monitor as generally performed in the national economy.
- Ray argued on appeal that the ALJ (1) made a patently wrong credibility finding, (2) misclassified his prior bus-monitor job (it was a composite job), (3) ignored that he lacks the DOT General Educational/Language level required for a bus monitor, and (4) failed to account for mental limitations in the RFC.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded, finding multiple legal errors in the ALJ’s credibility analysis, step-four composite-job analysis, failure to resolve a conflict with DOT language requirements, and flawed treatment of mental-impairment evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Ray's Argument | Agency's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility / symptom evaluation | ALJ improperly discredited Ray; misread records and failed to probe reasons for missed treatment | ALJ reasonably weighed daily activities and noncompliance | Court: ALJ’s credibility finding was patently wrong; she mischaracterized records and failed to explore reasons for missed care |
| Composite-job determination (step 4) | Ray’s bus-monitor role combined duties of bus monitor and child-care attendant (composite job), so DOT general-job comparison is improper | Vocational expert/testimony showed job was not composite | Court: Substantial-evidence lacking; record supports composite-job finding and expert testimony is ambiguous |
| DOT language/ GED conflict | Ray lacks DOT Language Development Level required (reading/writing) so cannot perform job as generally performed | VE testimony supported ability to perform job despite Ray’s literacy limits | Court: ALJ failed to resolve conflict between VE testimony and DOT; must address before relying on job availability |
| Mental impairments and RFC | ALJ erred by finding non-severe mental impairments and omitting concentration/persistence/pace limits from RFC | One severe physical impairment suffices; ALJ accounted for mental limits in RFC | Court: Step-two error harmless but ALJ must consider all impairments later; RFC based on flawed credibility so mental limitations require reassessment |
Key Cases Cited
- Lanigan v. Berryhill, 865 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing ALJ decisions — substantial evidence)
- Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2009) (credibility findings entitled to deference unless patently wrong)
- Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2014) (ALJ may not draw adverse inferences from lack of treatment without probing reasons)
- Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2000) (limitations in daily activities do not necessarily undermine complaints of disabling pain)
- Getch v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 2008) (ability to perform past work can be assessed by how claimant performed it or how job is generally performed)
- Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247 (7th Cir. 2016) (ALJ must resolve conflicts between vocational expert testimony and DOT under SSR 00-4p)