Gotoimoana Summers v. Nancy A. Berryhill
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13009
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Summers applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits alleging disability from Feb 24, 2012 (date she was fired), citing headaches, breathing difficulty, atrial fibrillation, dizziness/blackouts, depression, anxiety, obesity, and sleep apnea.
- Administrative hearing: Summers testified with counsel, but made multiple inconsistent statements about work history and substance use.
- A Vocational Expert testified a person limited to a reduced range of light work could perform Summers’s past assembler job and other jobs existing in the national economy.
- The ALJ found Summers had the RFC for a substantially reduced range of light work, gave her testimony only partial credibility due to inconsistencies, and denied benefits.
- The Appeals Council affirmed; the district court affirmed; Summers appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFC omissions (e.g., avoid machinery/sharp objects for bleeding risk) | RFC should include restrictions addressing bleeding risk from blood thinners | ALJ’s RFC already accounts for functional limits; no evidence bleeding risk required further restrictions | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports RFC as assessed |
| Failure to develop record about "bad days" | ALJ should have further probed frequency/severity of bad days that could preclude full-time work | Burden was on Summers to prove disability; she had counsel and ample opportunity to testify | Affirmed — no duty to further develop when claimant represented and record adequate |
| Consideration of obesity | ALJ failed to adequately consider obesity’s functional effects | ALJ treated obesity as severe impairment, discussed BMI, limitations, and accounted for obesity in RFC | Affirmed — ALJ adequately considered obesity and combined effects |
| Credibility finding | Summers argued her work history supported credibility and ALJ erred in adverse credibility finding | ALJ relied on multiple inconsistencies between testimony and medical/other records; credibility review owed deference | Affirmed — credibility finding supported and not patently wrong |
Key Cases Cited
- Castile v. Astrue, 617 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard of review: ALJ decisions must be supported by substantial evidence)
- Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306 (7th Cir. 2012) (court will not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for ALJ)
- White v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2005) (appellate risk when claimant ignores district court’s analysis)
- Meredith v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 650 (7th Cir. 1987) (claimant bears burden to prove disability)
- Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2007) (when represented, claimant presumed to have made best case before ALJ)
- Binion v. Shalala, 13 F.3d 243 (7th Cir. 1994) (speculation that additional evidence might exist insufficient to remand)
- Eichstadt v. Astrue, 534 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2008) (credibility findings get special deference and must be overturned only if patently wrong)
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2013) (ALJ need not write complete evaluation of every piece of evidence)