Melissa Vanprooyen v. Nancy A. Berryhill
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13182
7th Cir.2017Background
- Vanprooyen applied for Social Security Disability Insurance and SSI claiming disability from a 2010 fall that caused a left‑hemisphere brain hemorrhage and contusions, seizures, migraines, memory/attention problems, PTSD, anxiety, bipolar disorder, ADHD, and fibromyalgia.
- Medical records: early post‑fall discharge with recommendation to resume work, subsequent tonic‑clonic seizures, subdural hematoma, abnormal EEGs, neurologist restrictions (initially 8 then 6 hours/day) and repeated medication changes; some seizure control after medication adjustments and through December 2010–2011.
- Mental‑health and pain treatment: multiple psychiatrists and rheumatologists diagnosed generalized anxiety with panic, PTSD, bipolar disorder, ADHD, opiate dependency, and fibromyalgia with 18/18 tender points; treating providers (including Dr. Jones) gave restrictive functional assessments (e.g., <2 hours standing, need to move every 20 minutes, frequent absences).
- State agency consultative reviewers found moderate mental limitations but overall capacity for routine, repetitive work and imposed physical limits (sit/stand/walk up to 6 hours; avoid ladders/ropes); a consultative psychologist noted she could not manage her own benefits due to emotional/medical difficulties.
- ALJ decision: found impairments severe but not disabling, gave substantial weight to non‑examining state consultants, little weight to treating opinions, discounted claimant and fiancé credibility (citing part‑time work and daily activities), and adopted an RFC limiting her to simple, routine tasks and no hazardous environments; VE testified some light jobs remained available.
- Appeals: Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed. Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding the ALJ inadequately explained discounting of treating opinions and credibility determinations and misstated or omitted key medical evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of claimant and corroborating fiancé testimony | ALJ improperly discredited claimant and ignored fiancé’s corroboration; overstated significance of part‑time pre‑onset work and daily activities | ALJ relied on daily activities and work history to find inconsistent with disabling limitations | Reversed: ALJ mischaracterized work and activities, failed to explain discounting of fiancé’s corroboration; cannot equate limited/part‑time activity with ability to work full time |
| Treatment of treating physicians’ opinions (Dr. Jones, neurologist, psychiatrists) | ALJ improperly gave little weight to treating opinions without adequate reasons; treating opinions supported disabling limitations | ALJ favored non‑examining state consultants who she said summarized the record | Reversed: ALJ failed to give logical, supported reasons for rejecting treating opinions; non‑examining opinions alone cannot override treating sources |
| Use of objective evidence to reject subjective pain and fibromyalgia reports | ALJ discounted pain reports for lack of objective evidence | ALJ noted scarcity of objective tests and relied on that to reduce credibility | Reversed: ALJ erred — fibromyalgia lacks objective tests beyond tender‑point exam and claimant had 18/18 points; cannot discredit pain solely for lack of objective measures |
| Reliance on consultative exam and VE jobs given mental limitations | Consultative findings showed impaired ability to manage money and limited concentration; VE jobs (cashier/counter clerk) require handling money/attention | ALJ gave substantial weight to consultative reviewers and relied on VE that jobs existed for RFC adopted | Reversed/remand: ALJ omitted and misstated exam findings (money management) and did not reconcile treating/consultative evidence with RFC and VE testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir.) (daily activities cannot be equated with ability to work)
- Goins v. Colvin, 764 F.3d 677 (7th Cir.) (work before alleged onset does not preclude later disability)
- Shauger v. Astrue, 675 F.3d 690 (7th Cir.) (part‑time or accommodated work is weak evidence of ability to perform full‑time work)
- Engstrand v. Colvin, 788 F.3d 655 (7th Cir.) (treating physician opinions generally receive controlling weight absent contradictory support)
- Sarchet v. Chater, 78 F.3d 305 (7th Cir.) (diagnosing fibromyalgia and limits of objective testing)
- Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558 (7th Cir.) (cannot discredit pain testimony solely for lack of objective evidence)
- Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751 (7th Cir.) (pain is subjective and must be evaluated accordingly)
- Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467 (7th Cir.) (non‑examining physician’s opinion cannot alone justify rejecting examining physician)