DAVIS v. BERRYHILL
4:16-cv-00196
S.D. Ind.Oct 6, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Dusty D. Davis applied for DIB and SSI in Nov. 2013 alleging disability from Dec. 2011 due to chronic kidney disease and gouty arthropathy (he also identified obesity in records).
- ALJ found at steps 1–2 that Davis had no substantial gainful activity and had severe impairments of chronic kidney disease and gouty arthropathy; obesity was not analyzed.
- At step 3 the ALJ concluded Davis did not meet or medically equal any Listing but provided no analysis of medical equivalence beyond a heading.
- A medical expert (Dr. Lee Fischer) testified at the hearing that Davis did not meet or equal the Listings, but the ALJ referenced Fischer only in the RFC discussion, not as explicitly adopted for equivalence.
- The ALJ assessed RFC for limited sedentary work, discounted Davis’s symptom testimony, and found him able to perform certain sedentary jobs at step 5.
- The district court granted remand because the ALJ failed to adequately analyze medical equivalence and did not build the necessary explanatory bridge; the court also directed the ALJ on obesity, source evaluation, and credibility standards on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ adequately considered medical equivalence to Listings | ALJ failed to analyze or explain why evidence did not medically equal Listings; some record evidence supports equivalence | Plaintiff bears burden to show equivalence and did not cite controlling authority; any omission is harmless because ALJ relied on medical expert | Remand: ALJ did not provide required analysis of equivalence or indicate reliance on Dr. Fischer’s equivalence opinion; decision unsupported by substantial evidence |
| Whether failure to analyze obesity was error | Davis identified obesity and it should be considered in steps 3–5 | Error was harmless because Davis did not explain how obesity aggravated impairments | Remand: ALJ should address obesity on remand though omission was harmless here; must consider obesity’s impact going forward |
| Was ALJ’s RFC and source-weighting proper (including selective citation) | ALJ cherry-picked evidence, misweighed sources, and improperly discredited claimant’s testimony | ALJ’s RFC was supported by record and the ALJ permissibly evaluated credibility | Not decided on merits: court remanded so ALJ can reweigh sources under updated rules and reassess credibility per SSR 16-3p |
| Whether failure to state reasons for rejecting conflicting evidence requires reversal | ALJ must confront and explain rejection of conflicting medical evidence | Defendant contends decision read as a whole shows reasons | Court held ALJ failed to confront evidence supporting equivalence and build a logical bridge; cannot supply ALJ’s missing factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard for reviewing ALJ determinations)
- Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419 (7th Cir.) (ALJ may not cherry-pick evidence; must address conflicting evidence)
- Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118 (7th Cir.) (ALJ must explain why contradictory evidence is rejected)
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir.) (ALJ need not cite every piece of evidence but must build a logical bridge)
- Scheck v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697 (7th Cir.) (ALJ may accept uncontradicted medical opinion without detailed exposition)
- Rice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363 (7th Cir.) (ALJ’s decision may be read as a whole; overlapping analyses can be sufficient)
- Eichstadt v. Astrue, 534 F.3d 663 (7th Cir.) (claimant’s burden is to produce evidence supporting claim, not to prove equivalence)
- United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955 (7th Cir.) (court will not hunt for undeveloped arguments in briefs)