McHenry v. Berryhill
911 F.3d 866
7th Cir.2018Background
- McHenry, a former hair stylist, applied for Title II disability benefits alleging degenerative disc disease, fibromyalgia, and depression with an amended alleged onset of January 1, 2011; her date last insured was December 31, 2013.
- Treatment notes during the relevant period (2011–2013) show repeated nurse-practitioner visits with tender trigger points but generally normal gait, strength, reflexes, and negative straight-leg raises; she reported a debilitating flare after travel in Nov. 2013.
- She took multiple medications (including methadone and Norco) and sometimes reported sedation or concentration complaints, but contemporaneous notes often stated she had no adverse effects and that she was working during parts of the period.
- A post-period (April 2014) MRI showed multiple impinged nerve roots and spinal cord compression; Dr. Ippel (treating) later opined in 2014–2015 that her condition met Listing 1.04A and dated the disability to June 2011.
- The ALJ denied benefits: found degenerative disc disease and fibromyalgia severe but not meeting a listing, assigned an RFC for a limited range of light work (excluding certain activities and allowing position changes), and discounted McHenry’s credibility and the April 2014 MRI/Dr. Ippel’s opinions as inconsistent with contemporaneous records.
- The Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed; the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded because the ALJ erred by evaluating the April 2014 MRI without a medical expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by evaluating a post-period MRI without a medical expert | The April 2014 MRI was new and potentially dispositive; only a medical expert could relate it to the 2011–2013 period | ALJ compared MRI to contemporaneous records and found inconsistency; no expert needed | Court: ALJ impermissibly "played doctor"; must obtain medical scrutiny — remand required |
| Whether ALJ properly rejected treating physician's retrospective opinion that Listing 1.04A was met | Dr. Ippel’s retrospective opinion is corroborated by Nov. 2013 notes and plausibly predates the MRI findings | Commissioner: Dr. Ippel’s opinion is inconsistent with contemporaneous records and was post-period | Court: ALJ improperly rejected it without resolving the MRI/medical-evidence issue; supports remand |
| Whether ALJ omitted mental/social limitations (medication side effects, anxiety) from RFC | McHenry alleged concentration and social limits from meds and anxiety requiring inclusion in RFC | Commissioner: contemporaneous records show minimal or no adverse effects; no sustained evidence of functional limits | Court: No reversible error on this point — records did not show sustained functional limits during insured period |
| Whether ALJ’s adverse credibility findings were proper | McHenry: ALJ should have probed inconsistencies (e.g., driving report) and not relied on sporadic activities to discredit her | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly considered inconsistent statements and daily activities as undermining severity claims | Court: Credibility finding not "patently wrong"; ALJ’s reliance on activity reports and inconsistencies was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Goins v. Colvin, 764 F.3d 677 (7th Cir. 2014) (ALJ may not interpret new, potentially decisive MRI without medical expert)
- Akin v. Berryhill, 887 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 2018) (ALJ not qualified to independently assess MRI significance absent expert)
- Liskowitz v. Astrue, 559 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2009) (retrospective medical opinions considered only if corroborated by contemporaneous evidence)
- Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306 (7th Cir. 2012) (claimant must show disability before date last insured)
- Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2015) (review standard for ALJ final decision)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) (court reviews only the reasons relied on by the agency)