Lewis v. Colvin
1:16-cv-07870
N.D. Ill.Nov 9, 2017Background
- Jeffrey L. Lewis applied for Title II disability insurance benefits alleging onset May 18, 2004; his date last insured (DLI) was December 31, 2010.
- He worked as a CTA yard manager until May 2004 and claimed disabling back, knee, hypertension and dizziness related limitations.
- Medical record before the ALJ was sparse for the relevant period; main treatment notes from Dr. Claudia Johnson are dated 2011–2014 (after the DLI). Dr. Johnson completed a March 8, 2013 RFC questionnaire reporting significant standing/sitting limits.
- At the hearing Lewis sought subpoenas for earlier Claude Mandel Clinic records (potentially covering 2009–2010); the ALJ denied the subpoena as untimely and not reasonably necessary.
- The ALJ gave Dr. Johnson’s opinion minimal weight, found Lewis could perform his past relevant work as a yardmaster (light RFC with frequent postural activities), and denied benefits.
- The district court granted Lewis’s motion to remand, holding the ALJ failed adequately to weigh medical opinions and to develop the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed treating physician opinion | Lewis: ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Johnson’s RFC without adequate reasons or consideration of treating-source factors | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly found the opinion speculative, unsupported by imaging/acute care and completed after DLI | Court: Reversed — ALJ failed to give adequate, regulation-based reasons or consider the required treating-source factors; remand required |
| Whether RFC finding is supported by substantial evidence | Lewis: RFC lacks support given treating opinion and sparse record for relevant period | Commissioner: RFC supported by file and VE testimony that yardmaster is generally light work | Court: Not reached after remand on opinion-weighting, but signaled RFC needs reassessment on remand |
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated claimant’s symptoms/credibility | Lewis: ALJ relied improperly on lack of aggressive treatment and failure to pursue benefits | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly discounted symptoms for those reasons | Court: Not separately decided; directed ALJ on remand to follow SSR 16-3p guidance (consider reasons for not pursuing treatment) |
| Whether ALJ fulfilled duty to develop the record (denial of subpoena) | Lewis: ALJ should have subpoenaed pre-DLI clinic records that could be material | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly denied late subpoena as unnecessary (citing HALLEX) | Court: Troubled by denial and the ALJ’s conclusory reasoning; remand to develop complete records and reconsider evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2000) (five-step sequential evaluation and burdens at steps 1–4)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Scheck v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2004) (substantial-evidence standard)
- Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995 (7th Cir. 2004) (court may not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment)
- Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118 (7th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must build accurate, logical bridge from evidence to conclusion)
- Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001) (ALJ must provide some glimpse into reasoning)
- Boiles v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2005) (duty to fully develop the record)
- Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2009) (ALJ cannot "play doctor" or draw medical conclusions unsupported by evidence)
- Schmidt v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 117 (7th Cir. 1990) (warning that lay intuitions about medical matters can mislead)
- Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2007) (review limited to substantial evidence and correct legal criteria)