Holmes v. Colvin, 1:16-cv-11264

Background

Plaintiff Harriet P. Holmes applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from October 15, 2013; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ decision final.
Medical record: mild degenerative spine and hip changes on x‑ray; primary care treatment by Dr. Syed Husain for low‑back and bilateral hip pain; consultative exam showed mostly normal findings with mildly antalgic gait and 5/5 strength.
Non‑examining agency reviewers found capacity for light work with ~6 hours of sit/stand/walk and limited postural activities; treating physician Dr. Husain completed a Medical Source Statement claiming severe functional limits (e.g., <2 hours sit/stand/walk, need to shift every 30 minutes, leg elevation, frequent absences).
Holmes testified to limited ambulation (about half block), use of walker, need to shift position, ongoing pain, and treatment for depression including IOP records dated Sept. 2015–Apr. 2016.
ALJ found severe impairments of obesity, degenerative disc disease, and bilateral hip arthritis; RFC: light work with frequent stooping/kneeling/crouching/crawling/climbing ramps/stairs and only occasional ladders/ropes/scaffolds; concluded Holmes can perform past work as a case manager and is not disabled.
District court reviewed appeals council handling of post‑decision records and ALJ’s weighting of the treating physician and denied Holmes’s summary judgment motion, granting the government’s motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Appeals Council erred by not treating post‑hearing records as new and material	Holmes: mental‑health and prescription records submitted to Appeals Council were new and would likely change outcome	Govt: records predated ALJ decision and were available at hearing; Holmes gives no excuse for not submitting them earlier	Court: no error — records were not "new" because they existed before the hearing and Holmes failed to show good cause
Whether ALJ erred by not giving controlling weight to treating physician Dr. Husain	Holmes: ALJ improperly discounted Husain’s opinion and failed to apply §404.1527(c) factors explicitly	Govt: ALJ permissibly discounted Husain for internal inconsistencies and lack of support in objective record	Court: ALJ gave adequate, supported reasons and built a logical bridge; no reversible error
Whether RFC is inadequate because it fails to incorporate treating physician limitations	Holmes: even partial credit to Husain would produce outcome‑determinative limits omitted from RFC	Govt: RFC is the ALJ’s responsibility; ALJ need only include limitations supported by evidence	Court: ALJ reasonably excluded Husain’s extreme limits after discounting his opinion; RFC upheld
Whether ALJ failed to consider plaintiff’s depression	Holmes: ALJ erred by claiming lack of mental‑health evidence despite IOP records	Govt: ALJ relied on evidence before him and plaintiff bore burden to produce records at hearing	Court: ALJ did not err — limited mental‑health evidence in the hearing record showed no functional limitations; post‑decision records cannot be used to show error on the ALJ’s part

Key Cases Cited

Stepp v. Colvin, 795 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2015) (standard for Appeals Council review of new evidence)
Farrell v. Astrue, 692 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing when Appeals Council’s treatment of new evidence is reviewable)
Martinez v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must give "good reasons" for discounting treating physician)
Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 2009) (ALJ must build accurate and logical bridge from evidence to conclusion)
Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal inconsistencies in treating‑physician opinion may justify discounting it)
Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2007) (ALJ may rely on inconsistencies between objective findings and treating physician opinions)
Rice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2004) (court cannot reverse based on evidence first submitted to Appeals Council)