Kip Yurt v. Carolyn Colvin
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13251
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Kip Yurt applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits alleging disability beginning August 4, 2010, based primarily on a psychotic disorder (auditory hallucinations, violent impulses), OCD, COPD, chronic bifrontal tension headaches, memory problems, and hand tremor.
- Following psychiatric hospitalizations (short stays) in late 2010 and January 2011 and ongoing outpatient treatment, multiple clinicians assigned low-to-moderate GAF scores and documented command hallucinations, rage episodes, and episodic loss of awareness.
- A state non-examining psychologist (Dr. Lovko) completed a mental RFC form marking several ‘‘moderate’’ limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace, but concluded claimant could perform unskilled work with limited public contact.
- At hearing the ALJ adopted an RFC allowing unskilled work with only brief/superficial coworker/supervisor interaction and no work around large groups; the hypothetical to the VE tracked that RFC and omitted explicit mention of the moderate concentration/persistence/pace limits, headaches, blackouts, and COPD-related pulmonary-irritant restrictions.
- The VE testified that such an individual could perform claimant’s past work and other light unskilled jobs; the ALJ denied benefits. The district court affirmed; the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ’s hypothetical/RFC must incorporate the moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace identified by Dr. Lovko | Yurt: ALJ failed to include Dr. Lovko’s documented moderate limits (detailed instructions, schedule, pace, attendance) in the VE hypothetical and RFC, so VE testimony is unreliable | Commissioner: ALJ’s RFC and hypothetical adequately captured limitations by limiting to unskilled work and Dr. Lovko’s narrative RFC translated the moderate limits | Court: Reversed — ALJ failed to account for concentration/persistence/pace limits in the hypothetical/RFC; remand required to build a logical bridge and incorporate supported limitations |
| Whether an RFC limiting to "unskilled" work suffices to capture deficiencies in concentration, persistence, and pace | Yurt: ‘‘Unskilled work’’ limitation does not necessarily capture tempo/attention deficits | Commissioner: Limiting to unskilled work plus superficial interaction is adequate | Court: Rejected Commissioner; limiting to unskilled work alone does not substitute for specific C/P/P limitations; remand required |
| Whether ALJ properly relied on Dr. Lovko’s GAF-based conclusions and selectively used favorable records | Yurt: ALJ and Dr. Lovko cherry-picked a single higher GAF and ignored multiple lower GAFs and hospitalizations | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly evaluated evidence and was not bound to any single GAF | Held: Court faulted reliance on best GAF without addressing lower scores and ‘‘cherry-picking’’; ALJ must consider record as a whole on remand |
| Whether the ALJ erred by omitting claimant’s recurrent tension headaches and considering decompensation evidence | Yurt: Headaches and documented decompensation episodes were ignored; ALJ’s finding of no extended decompensation lacks explanation | Commissioner: Headaches not shown disabling; brief hospitalizations not extended decompensation | Held: Court found failure to assess headaches and to explain decompensation finding problematic; remand to evaluate headaches in combination and to analyze decompensation per Listing 12.03 |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Connor-Spinner v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2010) (VE hypothetical and RFC must incorporate limitations supported by the record, including concentration/persistence/pace).
- Johansen v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 283 (7th Cir. 2002) (consultative physician’s narrative RFC can sometimes ‘‘translate’’ moderate-limit findings, but is fact-specific).
- Stewart v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2009) (hypothetical must account for documented limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace).
- Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (limiting claimant to unskilled work does not necessarily capture limitations in memory, concentration, and mood).
- Bates v. Colvin, 736 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2013) (ALJ may not cherry-pick favorable evidence and must consider the record as a whole).
- Thomas v. Colvin, 745 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2014) (appellate review standard—ALJ decision must be supported by substantial evidence and provide sufficient discussion to permit meaningful judicial review).