Margaret Cullinan v. Nancy Berryhill
878 F.3d 598
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Margaret Cullinan applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI after an occipital stroke (May 2011) and asserted multiple impairments including anxiety, depression, right-eye peripheral blindness, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea.
- Medical evidence: early neurosurgeon report described right-eye blindness and right-sided weakness; consultative internist and psychologists found impaired peripheral vision, depression/anxiety, and retained ambulatory capacity; treating internist later reported largely normal walking/standing/sitting but some reduced capacity for certain activities.
- Treating psychologist Dr. John Canzona began biweekly therapy in 2013, assigned moderate GAF scores, and in April 2014 opined Cullinan could not sustain a normal workday due to concentration, travel, and public-transit limitations.
- At hearing Cullinan testified to limited standing/sitting/walking endurance, daily naps (1–4 hours), frequent long headaches, poor peripheral vision, balance issues, and unsuccessful brief attempts to return to work; vocational expert said a two-hour daily nap would preclude all work.
- ALJ found only anxiety and depression severe, discounted Cullinan’s testimony and Dr. Canzona’s opinion as inconsistent with treatment notes and daily activities, gave great weight to nonexamining state psychologists, limited claimant to light, simple, routine work, and denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review.
- District magistrate affirmed; Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo and vacated, remanding for further proceedings because the ALJ’s credibility and treating-source determinations were not supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly discredited claimant's symptom testimony | Cullinan: ALJ overstated significance of limited daily activities and drew impermissible inferences; ALJ failed to explain inconsistencies | Commissioner: ALJ relied on claimant's activities and treatment notes showing less limitation | Court: ALJ’s adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence and relied on unreasonable inferences; vacated |
| Whether ALJ permissibly rejected treating psychologist’s opinion | Cullinan: Dr. Canzona’s opinion is consistent with his notes and merits controlling/greater weight | Commissioner: Opinion inconsistent with treatment notes and other records; nonexamining consultants more reliable | Court: ALJ failed to show inconsistency; treating opinion improperly discounted without adequate explanation; remand required |
| Whether ALJ adequately evaluated effects of naps and headaches on RFC | Cullinan: Daily extended naps and debilitating headaches were omitted and would preclude work per VE testimony | Commissioner: ALJ implicitly accounted for concentration limitations (e.g., sleep apnea) and relied on medical opinions | Court: No record evidence contradicted naps/headaches; ALJ’s omission unexplained and could be dispositive; remand required |
| Whether ALJ properly relied on nonexamining consultants over treating sources | Cullinan: Nonexamining opinions cannot supplant a treating source without adequate reasons | Commissioner: Nonexamining opinions consistent with record; ALJ permissibly weighed evidence | Court: Because ALJ failed to properly evaluate treating source and credibility, reliance on nonexamining opinions was flawed; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2014) (credibility findings must be supported by logical inferences tied to record evidence)
- Ghiselli v. Colvin, 837 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2016) (errors in credibility evaluation can be harmful where they affect RFC and step-five findings)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing daily activities from ability to perform full-time work)
- Vanprooyen v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2017) (treating physician opinions entitled to controlling weight unless unsupported)
- Meuser v. Colvin, 838 F.3d 905 (7th Cir. 2016) (inadequate evaluation of treating-source opinion requires remand)