Hall v. Berryhill
906 F.3d 640
7th Cir.2018Background
- Curtis Hall injured his lower back at work in 2006, was diagnosed with an L5 disc herniation, underwent microdiscectomy in March 2007, and continued to receive temporary worker’s compensation.
- Functional testing in 2008 found Hall could perform light work (lift up to 20 lbs infrequently; sit 15–20 minutes; stand 30 minutes); several treating and consultative physicians (Miz, Hutchinson, Heller) agreed he could work at the light level.
- Hall later developed recurrent symptoms, had additional diagnostic procedures, and in 2011 saw neurosurgeon Dr. Martin Luken who recommended a foraminotomy and at times advised being off work; Dr. Luken later performed surgery in 2013 with substantial postoperative improvement.
- Hall applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits, alleging disability from March 7, 2007 through his date last insured (Dec. 31, 2012).
- An ALJ found Hall not fully credible, gave Dr. Luken’s opinions little weight as inconsistent with other medical evidence, assessed an RFC for light work with sit/stand option, and found jobs existed in the national economy; the Appeals Council and district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted treating neurosurgeon Dr. Luken’s opinion under the treating-physician rule | Hall: ALJ misapplied the rule and wrongly discounted Dr. Luken as inconsistent with record | Commissioner: ALJ properly discounted Luken because his opinions conflicted with contemporaneous, reasoned opinions and objective evidence | Court: Affirmed—ALJ permissibly favored other doctors; some ALJ remarks were improper but harmless because other valid reasons supported discounting Luken |
| Whether ALJ improperly impugned Dr. Luken’s motive ("sympathy") and reliance on referral | Hall: ALJ shouldn’t speculate that Luken was sympathetic or discount him for being a referred physician | Commissioner: These were part of ALJ’s reasoning supporting weight assessment | Held: Court faulted those particular comments but found them non‑prejudicial to overall conclusion |
| Whether ALJ inadequately explained credibility finding that Hall was "not fully credible" | Hall: ALJ failed to give adequate reasons per SSR 96‑7p | Commissioner: ALJ provided specific, evidence‑based reasons (inconsistencies, therapist’s notes, lack of reported medication side effects) | Held: Affirmed—credibility finding supported by substantial evidence and not "patently wrong" |
| Whether ALJ erred in RFC assessment / failing to find Listing 1.04A met | Hall: ALJ omitted pain level, need to shift, narcotic use; alleged Listing met | Commissioner: RFC included sit/stand option; Hall bore burden to prove Listing elements, which he did not | Held: Affirmed—arguments waived or unsupported; no medical findings showed required motor/sensory/reflex loss to meet Listing |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2010) (credibility determinations must not be "patently wrong")
- Crespo v. Colvin, 824 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2016) (undeveloped/perfunctory arguments are waived)
- Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2005) (claimant bears burden to prove a listing is met)