Devries v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:15-cv-00188
N.D. Ind.Aug 18, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Amber L. Devries (age 24) applied for Child’s Insurance and SSI; ALJ denied benefits and the denial was appealed to district court.
- ALJ found severe impairments: depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, attention deficit disorder, and obesity; hypothyroidism deemed non-severe and controlled.
- ALJ rejected several alleged impairments (osteoarthritis, ankle/knee disorders, mild mental retardation, menstrual disorder) as non–medically determinable based on the record.
- ALJ assessed a residual functional capacity (RFC): light work with limits (lift 20/10 lbs, stand/walk 2 hours, sit 6 hours, occasional stoop/kneel/crouch/crawl, no ladders/ropes/scaffolds) and simple, routine, repetitive tasks with limited social interaction.
- State agency consultants’ record-review opinions (attributed to Ann Lovko, Ph.D. and A. Dobson, M.D.) and consultative examiners (Drs. Streich and Inabnit) were considered; treating physician Dr. Bartush’s Mental Impairment Questionnaire was given little weight.
- District court affirmed, holding the ALJ’s findings supported by substantial evidence and that reliance on the consultants’ forms (with typed names/electronic signatures) and the weight assigned to opinions complied with applicable standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/weight of unsigned or typewritten-signed state-reviewer reports | Devries argued ALJ improperly relied on unsigned/typed-name reports (Lovko, Dobson); Terry prohibits unsigned reports denying benefits | Commissioner: signature rule cited by Devries applies to consultative exam reports, not non‑examining reviewers; forms likely electronically signed and acceptable under POMS | Court: Rejected plaintiff — regulation cited inapplicable to non‑examining reviewers; record forms consistent with accepted electronic signatures; ALJ permissibly relied on them |
| ALJ’s evaluation and assignment of weight to medical opinions | Devries argued ALJ failed to show weight given to various doctors and misapplied regulatory factors (Streich, Inabnit, Dobson, Lovko) | Commissioner: ALJ discussed relevant reports; some reports contained objective findings rather than medical opinions requiring weight analysis; arguments inadequately developed | Court: Many challenges abandoned in reply; ALJ’s treatment of these reports was adequate; no reversible error shown |
| Weight accorded to treating physician Dr. Bartush’s Mental Impairment Questionnaire | Devries contended ALJ erred in giving little weight to Bartush’s opinion that she was incapable of work | Commissioner: Bartush lacked a sustained treating relationship and the questionnaire may have been completed by NP; opinion inconsistent with records and education | Court: ALJ reasonably discounted Bartush — limited personal treatment, questionnaire prepared after minimal contact, possible input by NP, and internally inconsistent with other records |
| Consideration of obesity as exacerbating other impairments | Devries argued ALJ did not adequately consider obesity’s exacerbating effects per SSR 02-1p | Commissioner: ALJ explicitly stated he considered obesity’s impact and cited SSR 02-1p; record lacked specific evidence of additional work‑limitations from obesity | Court: Rejected plaintiff — ALJ properly considered obesity and record showed weight loss and lack of evidence tying obesity to further limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Overman v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 456 (7th Cir.) (standard for substantial evidence review)
- Nelms v. Astrue, 553 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S.) (hearsay medical reports can constitute substantial evidence)
- Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.) (limitations on using unsigned examination reports to deny benefits)
- Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118 (7th Cir.) (applying deferential substantial-evidence review)