Loveless v. Colvin
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 541
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Loveless, 56, applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability from right-shoulder injuries (rotator cuff), Type II diabetes, and alcoholic pancreatitis; he underwent shoulder surgeries in 2009 and 2011 and was treated by orthopedic surgeon Dr. Torok and PCP Dr. Cusack.
- Post-surgery records show progressive improvement: physical therapy notes (Aug–Sep 2011) show increased ROM, lifting to chest level (12–16 lbs), and by Sept 2011 Torok cleared him to work with permanent restrictions (no >10 lbs overhead, no >20 lbs overall).
- Loveless was hospitalized in Apr 2011 for alcohol-related conditions and newly diagnosed diabetes requiring insulin; he reported abstinence and weight loss thereafter.
- State-agency physicians (Drs. Corcoran and Brill) reviewed records and concluded Loveless could perform light work with right-arm and non-overhead restrictions; SSA initially denied benefits and on reconsideration.
- In Jan 2013 Dr. Cusack completed a restrictive RFC form (e.g., lift ≤5 lbs right arm; limited sitting/standing; frequent absences), which contradicted earlier objective findings and Dr. Torok’s opinion.
- The ALJ found Loveless not disabled, giving little weight to Dr. Cusack’s Jan 2013 opinion, finding Loveless capable of light work with specified limits; the Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ erred by not giving controlling/greater weight to treating physician Dr. Cusack’s Jan 2013 opinion | Loveless: Cusack’s most recent opinion reflects all conditions and should be controlling or weighed heavily | Commissioner: Cusack’s opinion conflicts with objective records, other physicians, and rests on subjective complaints; ALJ permissibly discounted it | Court: ALJ properly gave little weight to Cusack’s Jan 2013 opinion because it lacked support and was inconsistent with record |
| Whether ALJ ignored or overlooked Cusack’s October 2012 opinion to insurer | Loveless: ALJ omitted consideration of this opinion, implying oversight | Commissioner: Cusack’s conclusory statement that claimant "cannot work" is not a medical RFC and ALJ need not accept it; ALJ considered relevant notes and opinions | Court: ALJ did not err; ALJ need not adopt or repeat conclusory work-status statements and adequately considered medical evidence |
| Whether ALJ’s credibility finding relied on improper boilerplate or overstated daily activities | Loveless: Boilerplate credibility language and reliance on activities of daily living improperly discredited his testimony | Commissioner: Boilerplate is permissible if ALJ gives specific reasons; daily activities are a legitimate factor among others | Court: Although boilerplate used, ALJ gave specific, supported reasons (activities, conservative treatment, prior minimal pain reports); no remand required |
| Whether ALJ failed to account for diabetes/hand symptoms in RFC | Loveless: ALJ omitted limiting effects of diabetes-related neuropathy and hand impairment | Commissioner: ALJ considered available evidence and added manipulation/balancing restrictions; no medical basis for additional limits | Court: ALJ’s RFC adequately accounted for the documented evidence; claimant did not point to medical support for further restrictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2015) (Appeals Council denial makes ALJ decision final)
- Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2011) (treating physician weight standard)
- Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299 (7th Cir. 2010) (treating source opinion analysis)
- Bates v. Colvin, 736 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2013) (discounting opinions based on claimant’s subjective complaints)
- Filus v. Astrue, 694 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2012) (ALJ may discount treating opinion lacking objective support)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2012) (criticizing boilerplate credibility language but permitting well-supported findings)
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2013) (VA or other evidence can inform credibility and RFC)
- Hill v. Colvin, 807 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2015) (work history relevant to credibility but not dispositive)