Melissa Varga v. Carolyn Colvin
794 F.3d 809
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Melissa Varga applied for SSDI, alleging disability from December 2005 due to physical and mental impairments (PTSD, major depression, endometriosis, IBS, fibromyalgia); ALJ denied benefits and the decision was later affirmed by the district court.
- State psychological consultant Dr. Roger Rattan completed a Psychiatric Review Technique and Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment (MRFCA) in 2006, checking multiple "moderately limited" boxes in areas tied to concentration, persistence, and pace.
- Dr. Rattan wrote "See EWS" for the narrative RFC; the referenced electronic worksheet was lost and no narrative mental-RFC appeared in the record.
- At the 2012 hearing the ALJ adopted an RFC limiting Varga to simple, routine, repetitive tasks, no fast-paced production, few workplace changes, and only occasional interaction; the ALJ posed a similar hypothetical to a vocational expert (VE).
- The VE testified such an individual could perform Varga’s past work and other jobs; the ALJ found Varga not disabled. On appeal, Varga argued the hypothetical and RFC omitted her moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace as found by Dr. Rattan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ’s hypothetical and RFC failed to incorporate moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace | Varga: ALJ omitted documented moderate limitations from VE hypothetical and RFC, so VE testimony cannot support nondisability finding | Commissioner: RFC/hypothetical (simple, routine tasks; limited changes/interactions; no fast-paced production) adequately captured limitations; Section I checkboxes are just a worksheet and lack narrative translation | Reversed: ALJ erred. Hypothetical did not account for moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace reflected in Dr. Rattan’s Section I findings, and those worksheet findings are medical evidence the ALJ could not ignore absent a narrative RFC translation |
Key Cases Cited
- Yurt v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 2014) (hypothetical to VE and RFC must incorporate limitations supported by medical record; failure to include moderate CPI limitations reversible)
- O'Connor-Spinner v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2010) (ALJ must build a logical bridge and include claimant’s limitations in hypothetical to VE)
- Indoranto v. Barnhart, 374 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2004) (VE hypothetical must incorporate all claimant limitations supported by record)
- Stewart v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2009) (hypothetical must account for documented limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace)
- Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (limiting claimant to unskilled work does not necessarily capture concentration or mood-related limitations)
- Johansen v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 283 (7th Cir. 2002) (an ALJ may rely on a treating physician’s narrative RFC where it adequately translates worksheet findings)