Debara DeCamp v. Nancy Berryhill
916 F.3d 671
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- Debara DeCamp applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI, claiming disability from a benign pineal gland tumor, chronic pain (neck/back), and bipolar disorder/substance-history.
- Medical records: imaging-confirmed benign pineal mass (2010); history of depression, suicide attempts, cutting, and past substance abuse; migraines and chronic pain treated by primary care.
- State-agency psychologists completed PRT and MRFC forms: Dr. Lefevre found "moderate" limits in concentration, persistence, or pace but also noted ability to perform basic unskilled work; Dr. Pape and Dr. Goldstein identified similar or greater moderate/marked limits (including in sustaining attention, punctuality, completing a normal workday); narrative explanations accompanied checkbox findings.
- ALJ found DeCamp not disabled: severe impairments included mental disorders and pain; RFC limited her to light, unskilled work with no fast-paced production/tandem tasks, occasional interaction, and up to 10% off-task time; vocational expert identified representative jobs.
- ALJ discounted DeCamp’s credibility for reasons including vacation travel, dog-walking, appearance at exams/hearings, and sparse contemporaneous complaints in records.
- District court affirmed; Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the ALJ failed to properly account for DeCamp’s limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace in the hypothetical to the vocational expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ adequately included limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace (CPP) in RFC/hypothetical | ALJ omitted CPP moderate limitations and used generic limits (unskilled, no fast-paced production) that don’t capture CPP deficits | ALJ relied on narrative portions of medical opinions and her judgment to translate limits into functional RFC | Reversed/remanded: ALJ failed to account for moderate CPP limitations in the VE hypothetical and RFC because checkbox limitations were not incorporated or shown to be captured by the ALJ’s formulation |
| Whether VE had sufficient basis to testify about jobs given hypothetical | VE testimony unreliable because hypothetical omitted CPP limitations | VE reviewed an unspecified E-file and testified jobs exist for ALJ’s hypothetical | ALJ erred: VE did not independently review the full record to excuse a more specific hypothetical; omitted CPP limits undermined VE testimony |
| Whether ALJ permissibly assessed credibility | DeCamp argued adverse credibility finding was unsupported | Commissioner defended credibility reasons (vacation, activities, exam appearance, medical record gaps) | Court did not reach this argument after remand decision on CPP issue |
| Whether ALJ could rely on narrative explanations over checkbox findings | DeCamp argued checkbox moderate/marked limits must be accounted for, not overridden by selective narrative | Commissioner argued narratives sufficiently described limitations and ALJ may rely on them | Court held narratives do not excuse failing to address checkbox-identified limits; ALJ must account for limits identified elsewhere in record |
Key Cases Cited
- Moreno v. Berryhill, 882 F.3d 722 (7th Cir.) (ALJ must account for limitations in CPP in VE hypothetical unless VE independently reviewed records)
- Lanigan v. Berryhill, 865 F.3d 558 (7th Cir.) (requirements for hypothetical questions to VE)
- O’Connor-Spinner v. Colvin, 832 F.3d 690 (7th Cir.) (limiting to no fast-paced production is not a proxy for CPP limitations)
- Yurt v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 850 (7th Cir.) (ALJ must account for checkbox limits; narrative alone may not suffice)
- Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809 (7th Cir.) (VE must review medical records or the ALJ must include all limitations in hypothetical)