Michael Reinaas v. Andrew M. Saul
953 F.3d 461
| 7th Cir. | 2020Background
- Claimant (mid-50s) had prior cervical fusion surgeries (2010, 2011), a torn right rotator cuff, and ongoing cervicogenic headaches and neck/shoulder pain; he underwent right shoulder surgery on January 11, 2013.
- Treated for several years by Dr. Donald Bodeau (occupational physician); by April 2014 Bodeau documented objective findings (cervical paraspinal/trapezius muscle spasms, signs of nerve damage, limited cervical ROM), concluded claimant had deteriorated and was unlikely to regain employment, and estimated ~4 absences/month.
- State‑agency non‑examining physicians (Dr. Ruiz, Dr. Prosperi) reviewed the records, found claimant’s symptom reports not fully credible, and assessed an RFC permitting light work with restrictions; the ALJ gave their opinions great weight.
- At hearing claimant testified to frequent severe migraines (10–15 days/month), limited neck motion, daily pain medication use, and need for frequent rest; a vocational expert testified jobs existed for an RFC allowing light work and up to 10% off‑task time but not if claimant required unscheduled prolonged breaks or frequent absences.
- ALJ discounted Dr. Bodeau’s opinion (reasoning: based on subjective reports, doctor lacked knowledge of SSA rules, and visit occurred at counsel’s request), found claimant not disabled; district court affirmed. Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ gave good reasons for discounting treating physician Dr. Bodeau’s opinion | Bodeau was a long‑treating occupational specialist who examined claimant and recorded objective signs; ALJ failed to apply regulatory factors or explain weight given | ALJ relied on Bodeau’s supposed reliance on claimant’s subjective complaints, lack of SSA‑rules expertise, and that the April 2014 visit was connected to the disability claim | ALJ erred: failure to apply 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors, ignored objective exam findings, and improperly discounted treating opinion; remand required |
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated claimant’s subjective pain and limitations in assessing RFC | Claimant’s testimony, medical diagnoses (cervicogenic headaches, chronic shoulder impingement), and treating notes support more restrictive RFC and more frequent/longer absences | ALJ found subjective complaints inconsistent with medical record and claimant’s reported activities (farm work, chainsaw, mowing) | ALJ erred: improperly cherry‑picked favorable evidence, failed to connect migraines to spinal history, and misread limited farm activities as full‑time work capacity; remand required |
| Reliance on non‑examining reviewers over treating physician | Treating physician had longitudinal, specialty knowledge and objective findings; non‑examining reviewers lacked firsthand, updated observations | Non‑examining reviewers provided contrary medical judgments supporting non‑disability | Court found reliance on non‑examining opinions insufficient where ALJ did not adequately justify discounting treating opinion; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (clarifying substantial‑evidence review standard for ALJ decisions)
- Hall v. Berryhill, 906 F.3d 640 (7th Cir.) (treating‑physician opinion and regulatory factors under § 404.1527)
- Meuser v. Colvin, 838 F.3d 905 (7th Cir.) (ALJ may not ignore contrary treating‑source evidence)
- Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467 (7th Cir.) (weight of non‑examining reviewers vs. treating sources)
- Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419 (7th Cir.) (ALJ may not cherry‑pick favorable facts while ignoring contrary evidence)
- Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704 (7th Cir.) (opinion prepared for purposes of litigation is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to reject treating opinion)
- Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558 (7th Cir.) (linking migraine‑type headaches to cervical impairments in credibility assessment)
- Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 834 (7th Cir.) (distinguishing activities of daily living from ability to perform full‑time work)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir.) (limitations of relying on sporadic ability to perform certain activities)