Jennifer Moore v. Carolyn Colvin
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3727
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Jennifer Moore applied for Social Security disability benefits, alleging disability beginning September 6, 2007; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council declined review.
- ALJ found severe impairments: chronic migraines, asthma, morbid obesity, and rheumatoid arthritis; other conditions were nonsevere.
- ALJ assessed an RFC for sedentary work with environmental exclusions and concluded Moore could perform past work as a reservation agent.
- ALJ discounted Moore’s migraine testimony in part by relying on emergency-room records and treating/examining providers’ concerns about possible drug-seeking.
- Treating neurologist Dr. Daniel Hier opined Moore had continuous unremitting headaches and was disabled; the ALJ gave his opinion little weight as conclusory and inconsistent with other records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly evaluated Moore’s migraine-related limitations and RFC | Moore: ALJ ignored substantial treating and testimonial evidence of debilitating, recurrent migraines and failed to include absenteeism/limitations in RFC | Commissioner: Emergency-room patterns and some treating notes suggest drug-seeking; treating opinions on disability are on a reserved issue and may be discounted | Reversed and remanded: ALJ failed to address contrary evidence and did not build a logical bridge from record to RFC; must reassess limitations (including likely absences) and present them to the VE |
| Use of boilerplate credibility language | Moore: Boilerplate was used and ALJ’s detailed follow-up did not cure failure to connect credibility findings to evidence | Commissioner: ALJ engaged in further credibility analysis beyond boilerplate | Court: Boilerplate condemned but does not automatically require remand if ALJ explains basis; here explanation was incomplete and selective, requiring remand |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating neurologist Dr. Hier’s opinion | Moore: Dr. Hier’s opinion that headaches are refractory and disabling is supported by treatment history and not a reserved RFC conclusion; ALJ erred in rejecting it for being subjective or conclusory | Commissioner: Dr. Hier’s disability statement is on an issue reserved to the Commissioner and lacked detailed rationale; inconsistent with other opinions | Court: ALJ erred in discounting Dr. Hier without adequate reasons or seeking clarification; opinion was not plainly a pure conclusory legal finding and related medical observations warranted consideration |
| Whether ALJ reasonably relied on emergency-room notes suggesting drug-seeking | Moore: ALJ overstated and selectively relied on ER-skepticism while ignoring many ER records and treating physicians that corroborated severe migraines | Commissioner: ER patterns reasonably factor into credibility and may undermine symptom reports | Court: ALJ may consider possible drug-seeking but must confront and reconcile substantial contrary evidence rather than selectively reciting records |
Key Cases Cited
- Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2009) (Appeals Council denial makes ALJ decision final)
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2013) (RFC must be based on evidence and ALJ must explain credibility findings)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2012) (condemning boilerplate credibility language)
- Filus v. Astrue, 694 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2012) (ALJ cannot force testimony into a foregone RFC conclusion)
- Indoranto v. Barnhart, 374 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2004) (ALJ must confront and explain rejection of contrary evidence)
- Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2004) (treatment-seeking, including invasive procedures, supports credibility of pain complaints)
- Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 2009) (treating physician opinions get controlling weight if supported and consistent)
- Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must give good reasons to discount treating physician)
- Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2013) (full-time work differs materially from daily activities; ALJ may not conflate them)
- Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995 (7th Cir. 2004) (ALJ must build a logical bridge from evidence to conclusion)