Ghiselli v. Colvin
837 F.3d 771
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Debora Ghiselli applied for Social Security disability benefits alleging disability from October 1, 2007 through her last insured date September 30, 2011 due to degenerative disc disease, asthma, and obesity after a workplace injury.
- Her application and reconsideration were denied; an ALJ held a hearing and found her not disabled under the five-step sequential evaluation (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520), concluding she could perform a range of light work with limitations.
- The ALJ gave significant weight to state-agency consultants and non-treating examiners (Drs. Foster, Cohen, Garcia, Tagalakis) and declined to give controlling weight to treating physician Dr. Marjorie Delo’s repeated four-hour shift restriction, finding it unsupported by objective evidence.
- The ALJ discredited Ghiselli’s subjective pain allegations in part because she reported ability to perform several daily activities and had said she was looking for work in 2008, which the ALJ viewed as inconsistent with disability.
- The district court affirmed the ALJ; the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether the ALJ properly evaluated the treating physician opinion and Ghiselli’s credibility, and whether remand was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of treating physician opinion | Dr. Delo’s repeated 4-hour shift restriction should be given controlling weight and establishes inability to work full-time | ALJ: restriction not supported by objective medical evidence and inconsistent with other substantial evidence | Court: ALJ did not err in declining controlling weight because Dr. Delo’s restriction lacked objective support and seemed based on subjective complaints |
| Evaluation of subjective pain/credibility | Ghiselli’s pain statements should be credited where medical impairments could produce pain | ALJ: claimant’s reported daily activities and job-seeking undermined credibility | Court: ALJ erred—failed to account for differences between daily activities and full-time work and gave inadequate reasons for finding Ghiselli not credible; credibility finding patently wrong |
| Use of daily activities to discredit claimant | Daily activities reflect disabling limitations when properly considered | ALJ: activities show ability to work | Court: ALJ improperly equated daily activities with capacity for full-time work without explanation; cannot support adverse credibility finding |
| RFC off-task / sit-stand limitation explanation | RFC must be logically connected to medical evidence | ALJ: limited off-task time to 10% without detailed explanation | Court: deficiency likely harmless here but on remand agency must build a logical bridge from evidence to RFC limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118 (7th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must consider subjective pain when impairment can produce it)
- Loveless v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2016) (treating physician weight principle)
- Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2013) (inability to work full-time indicates disability)
- Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2008) (treating opinion may be discounted if based on subjective complaints)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2012) (daily activities differ materially from full-time work)
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2013) (ALJ must build an accurate and logical bridge from evidence to RFC)
- Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (credibility determinations can be patently wrong and require remand)
- Wilder v. Chater, 64 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 1995) (employment or job-seeking does not necessarily negate disability)