Hall v. Colvin
1:16-cv-07906
N.D. Ill.Feb 6, 2018Background
- Joseph Hall filed for Social Security Disability Insurance (DIB) alleging disability from a June 26, 2012 subarachnoid hemorrhage, with date last insured March 31, 2013; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council declined review.
- Post-hemorrhage treatment included hospitalization with external ventricular drain, Keppra, outpatient speech and physical therapy, and ongoing complaints of daily headaches, dizziness, fatigue, and cognitive/slowing symptoms to multiple providers.
- Treating notes: primary care Dr. Frank repeatedly documented headaches and functional complaints; neurosurgeon Dr. Citow repeatedly cleared full activities at times; neurologist Dr. Weisz diagnosed chronic daily/mixed headaches responsive to medication with periods of improvement.
- Consultative and test evidence: one-time psychological/mental status consult showed largely intact basic functioning; reviewing physicians limited hazard exposure due to possible seizures; medical expert (ME) at hearing acknowledged daily headaches soon after hemorrhage and uncertainty whether Listing frequency was met for a continuous year.
- Vocational expert (VE) testified claimant’s past janitorial leader job could be performed if limited only to avoiding concentrated hazards, but additional nonexertional limits (simple tasks only) or being off-task 15%+ would preclude competitive work.
- District court found ALJ’s Listing (step three) analysis and credibility/RFC evaluation inadequate and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant met or equaled Listing 11.03 (epilepsy/headache-analog) | Hall: frequent, daily post-hemorrhage headaches and associated impairment may satisfy Listing-equivalent criteria for frequency and significant interference | Comm’r: ME concluded Listings not met; ALJ relied on ME and treatment notes showing improvement | Court: ALJ’s brief analysis and selective reliance on favorable records insufficient; remand for fuller Listing analysis |
| Whether ALJ properly assessed claimant credibility about pain, headaches, and limitations | Hall: ALJ ignored consistent treating complaints and used boilerplate reasoning; credibility undermined | Comm’r: ALJ permissibly discounted complaints based on objective improvement and ME testimony | Court: Credibility evaluation deficient (boilerplate, cherry-picking); must be reassessed per SSR 16-3p on remand |
| Whether RFC was supported by substantial evidence | Hall: RFC ignored treating complaints and non-severe impairments; ALJ cherry-picked positive records | Comm’r: RFC reasonable given examiner/ME opinions and episodic improvement | Court: RFC unsupported because ALJ failed to consider full record including non-severe impairments; must reassess RFC on remand |
| Whether ALJ properly relied on ME testimony without adequate probing | Hall: ME testimony was equivocal on frequency/year requirement and memory testing gaps existed | Comm’r: ME testimony supported ALJ’s conclusions | Court: ME testimony ambiguous; ALJ should have probed further and resolved conflicts before concluding Listings not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881 (7th Cir.) (administrative decision becomes final when Appeals Council denies review)
- Steele v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936 (7th Cir.) (standard of review—substantial evidence)
- Diaz v. Chater, 55 F.3d 300 (7th Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Lopez v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 535 (7th Cir.) (court will not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment)
- Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863 (7th Cir.) (ALJ must build a logical bridge from evidence to conclusion)
- Carlson v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 180 (7th Cir.) (articulation requirement for ALJ’s reasoning)
- Stephens v. Heckler, 766 F.2d 284 (7th Cir.) (tracing ALJ’s reasoning)
- Ribaudo v. Barnhart, 458 F.3d 580 (7th Cir.) (claimant bears burden at step three to show Listing is met)
- Parker v. Astrue, 597 F.3d 920 (7th Cir.) (criticizing boilerplate credibility language)
- Getch v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 473 (7th Cir.) (ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence but may not cherry-pick)
- Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419 (7th Cir.) (ALJ may not ignore an entire line of evidence)
- Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668 (7th Cir.) (RFC must consider all relevant medical and non-medical evidence)