759 F.3d 811
7th Cir.2014Background
- Karen Murphy suffered a stroke in April 2007 and reported ongoing right-side sensory/proprioceptive deficits, intermittent aphasia, and frequent headaches during follow-up with Dr. Joseph Mayer and his PA.
- She completed only part of her prescribed physical therapy, had home exercises she did not fully follow, and took vacations in July 2007 and July 2008 (2008 trip described as largely sedentary).
- Murphy applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) in September 2008; an ALJ found her not disabled (RFC: full range of light, unskilled work) after a hearing with claimant, husband, and a vocational expert (VE). Appeals Council denied review. A magistrate judge affirmed the Commissioner; Murphy appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
- At the hearing the VE testified about jobs for various hypothetical RFCs; the ALJ relied on the medical-vocational grids (Rule 202.21) rather than the VE’s testimony in the final step.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo and concluded the ALJ’s credibility finding, RFC determination, and reliance on the grids were not supported by substantial evidence and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Murphy's Argument | Commissioner/ALJ's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility determination | ALJ improperly discredited Murphy for incomplete PT and vacations without probing reasons | Noncompliance and vacations show exaggeration of limitations | Reversed: ALJ failed to question claimant about reasons for noncompliance and activities; credibility finding not supported |
| RFC assessment | RFC did not account for claimant’s asserted limits (lift/carry, standing/walking, sitting) and cherry-picked improving notes | Treatment notes showing stability/improvement support light-work RFC | Reversed: medical records lacked function-by-function assessment or evidence that claimant can meet light-work criteria; ALJ did not build a logical bridge |
| Use of vocational grids | Non-exertional limits (aphasia, dizziness, memory, pain) preclude exclusive use of grids; VE testimony based on incomplete hypotheticals | Because RFC found full range of light work, grids (Rule 202.21) apply | Reversed: grids misapplied because RFC excluded limitations based on erroneous credibility finding; hypotheticals to VE omitted required limitations |
| Need for remand/next steps | Award benefits or remand for further proceedings | Affirm denial | Remand for further administrative proceedings to address credibility, obtain needed functional assessments, and properly assess RFC and vocational evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836 (7th Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (hearsay medical reports admissible for substantial-evidence review)
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir.) (boilerplate credibility language not automatically fatal; ALJ must provide adequate reasons)
- Schmidt v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 737 (7th Cir.) (ALJ must build a logical bridge but need not evaluate every piece of evidence)
- Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306 (7th Cir.) (deference to ALJ credibility findings but reversible if patently wrong)
- Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408 (7th Cir.) (credibility determinations overturned when lacking explanation)
- McKinzey v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 884 (7th Cir.) (ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in RFC; grids use depends on nature of limitations)
- Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668 (7th Cir.) (failure to follow prescribed treatment may affect credibility but ALJ must explore good reasons)
- Shauger v. Astrue, 675 F.3d 690 (7th Cir.) (ALJ should question claimant about reasons for noncompliance)
- Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558 (7th Cir.) (ALJ may not ignore evidence contrary to ruling)
- Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995 (7th Cir.) (VE must know full picture of claimant’s limitations)
- Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805 (7th Cir.) (requirement to provide VE a complete RFC hypothetical)
- Haynes v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 621 (7th Cir.) (definitions and distinction between exertional and nonexertional limits)
- Steele v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936 (7th Cir.) (VE must not refer to jobs a claimant cannot perform)