634 F. App'x 590
7th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Lianne Summers applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI alleging chronic back and extremity pain following a 2004 car accident; initial application filed in 2009 after gaps in treatment.
- Medical record includes diagnoses of fibromyalgia and chronic pain syndrome; tests ruled out Lyme disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and carpal tunnel.
- ALJ found severe impairments: obesity, fibromyalgia, and disorders of back/musculature; concluded Summers could perform sedentary work with frequent fine manipulation.
- ALJ discredited Summers’ subjective symptom testimony based on conservative treatment, inconsistent diagnostic findings, normal strength/neurologic exams, consulting physician opinions, and a doctor’s note about her stated desire for benefits.
- Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed; Summers appealed to the Seventh Circuit challenging credibility, Step 3 listing determination, and the RFC finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility determination | ALJ improperly relied on boilerplate and medical-record gaps; failed to probe reasons for lack of treatment | ALJ provided specific reasons beyond boilerplate: conservative treatment, exam findings, inconsistent complaints, consulting opinions, and noted possible secondary gain | Affirmed — boilerplate harmless; ALJ’s detailed analysis supported credibility finding |
| Use of treatment gap | ALJ erred by citing years without treatment without asking why | ALJ’s references related to conservative nature of treatment, not an adverse inference from gaps; plaintiff didn’t show prejudice | Affirmed — no harmful failure to investigate; gaps discussed in context of conservative care |
| Step 3 (Listing 1.04) | ALJ’s listing analysis was cursory and insufficient | ALJ’s decision read as a whole addresses the lack of required objective criteria for Listing 1.04 | Affirmed — ALJ’s overall reasoning adequately explains why listing not met |
| RFC reliance on non-treating consultative opinions | ALJ improperly gave great weight to non-treating Dr. Cohen and to pre-2010 opinions | No treating physician provided a contrary functional opinion; state agency consults were consistent and uncontradicted | Affirmed — permissible to rely on uncontradicted expert opinions to formulate RFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing ALJ credibility findings)
- Goins v. Colvin, 764 F.3d 677 (7th Cir. 2014) (criticizing boilerplate credibility language)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2012) (same)
- Filus v. Astrue, 694 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2012) (boilerplate harmless when decision contains specific reasons)
- Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2015) (procedural context for Appeals Council review)
- Hall v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015) (limits on relying solely on lack of objective evidence for credibility)
- Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (ALJ must inquire about reasons for failure to seek treatment before drawing adverse inference)
- Spiva v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2010) (harmless-error doctrine in Social Security appeals)
- Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2015) (listing analysis must be adequate on the record)
- Rice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2004) (read ALJ decision as a whole)
- Cass v. Shalala, 8 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 1993) (permissible to rely on non-treating experts when uncontradicted)