Heather Browning v. Carolyn Colvin
766 F.3d 702
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff, a 25-year-old woman, appeals district court’s denial of SSI benefits for claimed disability due to intellectual disability and left-leg pain from Legg-Calve-Perthes disease.
- IQ testing in 2007 produced a score of 68; later psychologists opined she could work, including sheltered employment; ALJ deemed the 68 invalid largely based on Dr. Fink's intratest scatter.
- Plaintiff’s obesity is severe (BMI ~38.7) and contributes to leg pain and reduced mobility; she uses a wheelchair or crutches and has limited work history (three days of part-time janitorial work).
- ALJ found plaintiff could perform sedentary work, misweighing her limitations and discounting obesity's impact on siting and postural demands; he relied on a sarcastic remark by a psychologist and other subjective features as indicia of non-disability.
- Vocational evidence focused on a local Chandler, Indiana area with an asserted 127 jobs; the analysis did not adequately account for immobility and the extent of available work regionally, nationally, or for sedentary positions.
- Appendix incorrectly describes a non-existent “hand packer” job; DOT description referenced is for hand bander (tobacco), not the claimed hand packager, and the DOT edition is outdated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ err by discounting the IQ 68 score based on intratest scatter? | Pltf argues score reflects intellectual limitation, not invalid; intratest scatter does not negate disability. | Dft contends low IQ combined with other impairments not conclusively disabling; physician commentary undermines reliability. | Reversed for error; dependency on intratest scatter without proper record support improper. |
| Was obesity properly considered in evaluating work capacity and residual functional capacity? | Obesity, combined with leg impairment, reduces ability to sit, stand, and perform tasks; ALJ failed to assess combined effects. | ALJ treated obesity as non-severe without improper reliance on separate impairments. | Remand required to consider obesity's combined effect on work ability. |
| Did VE's hypothetical and the ALJ's postural and concentration limitations yield improper disability findings? | Hypothetical failed to include all limitations; VE testimony cannot establish capacity when ALJ omitted impairments. | VE based on assumed capacity; hypothetical should reflect limitations, which were inadequate. | Hypothetical and vocational analysis defective; remand necessary. |
| Did the SSA's reliance on outdated DOT data and local job counts improperly limit disability determination? | DOT 23-year-old edition misleads; insufficient data on available jobs for claimant with multiple impairments. | Regulation allows consideration of regional and national job availability; the approach is standard. | Remand to reassess job availability with credible, current data. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pates-Fires v. Astrue, 564 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court must rely on proper medical data and avoid improper lay speculation)
- O'Connor-Spinner v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2010) (vocational expert cannot rely on record review if ALJ's hypothetical omits limitations)
- Harmon v. Apfel, 168 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 1999) (combined effects of impairments must be considered in disability analysis)
- Donato v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 721 F.2d 414 (2d Cir. 1983) (immobility due to disability must be factored into disability and job availability analysis)