Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security
3:17-cv-00384
N.D. Ind.Sep 27, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Marricela Gonzalez received SSI as a minor for marked limitations related to attention and social interaction; at age 18 she was found no longer disabled under adult standards.
- Gonzalez (age 20 at hearing) applied for Social Security Disability Insurance alleging autism spectrum disorder, depression, and obesity.
- The ALJ found Gonzalez had severe impairments (obesity, autism, depression), assigned a sedentary RFC with limitations (simple, routine tasks; limited interaction), and concluded she could perform jobs existing in significant numbers.
- The ALJ relied in part on limited treatment records (few therapy visits Nov 2014–Aug 2015) to discount the severity of mental impairments.
- The district court reviewed whether the ALJ built a ‘‘logical bridge’’ from the record to her findings and whether she improperly discounted evidence regarding Gonzalez’s autism and treatment-seeking.
- The court concluded the ALJ inadequately considered how autism could limit treatment-seeking, potentially cherry-picked normal/average-functioning records, and that remand was required for further development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated autism and the lack of treatment | ALJ failed to consider why autism/depression might limit Gonzalez’s ability to seek or sustain treatment and ignored evidence of autism-related functional limits | ALJ relied on sparse treatment records to infer lesser symptom severity | Court: ALJ did not adequately address why limited treatment occurred and must reassess autism’s functional effects on remand |
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted mental limitations based on limited treatment | Gonzalez: mental illnesses fluctuate; absence of treatment is not a valid reason to discount symptoms without considering explanations | Commissioner: minimal treatment undermines severity of reported symptoms | Court: ALJ’s treatment-based discounting was flawed because she failed to probe explanations and consider mental-impairment realities |
| Whether ALJ’s step-three finding (moderate vs. marked limitations) was supported by substantial evidence | Gonzalez: record supports marked limitations given childhood findings and contemporaneous evidence | Commissioner: selective records show only moderate limitations | Court: Because ALJ may have cherry-picked favorable records and did not adequately analyze autism, step three finding is not supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether remand is required and appropriate remedy | Gonzalez seeks reversal/remand for further development | Commissioner defends ALJ’s decision as supported by evidence | Court: Reversed and remanded for further consideration consistent with the opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155 (7th Cir.) (ALJ must build a logical bridge between evidence and findings)
- Bates v. Colvin, 736 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir.) (ALJ cannot rely only on evidence that supports her opinion)
- Rohan v. Chater, 98 F.3d 966 (7th Cir.) (ALJs must not make their own independent medical findings)
- Israel v. Colvin, 840 F.3d 432 (7th Cir.) (courts caution against judges interpreting medical reports without expert support)
- Blankenship v. Bowen, 874 F.2d 1116 (6th Cir.) (questionable practice to fault mentally impaired claimants for failing to seek treatment)
- Phillips v. Astrue, [citation="413 F. App'x 878"] (7th Cir.) (mental illnesses often wax and wane; ALJs must account for fluctuation)