Michelle Jeske v. Andrew M. Saul, 955 F.3d 583

Background

In October 2012 Jeske injured her back carrying a casket; she applied for disability insurance benefits and SSI with an alleged onset of January 1, 2014.
The ALJ found severe impairments (lumbar facet arthropathy, depression, PTSD) but concluded Jeske retained an RFC for light work with sit/stand at will, limited stooping/crouching/kneeling/crawling/climbing (ramps/stairs only), no ladders/ropes/scaffolds, and restricted to simple, unskilled tasks.
Imaging (2012 MRI, 2013 nuclear scan, 2016 x‑ray) was described as mild or unremarkable; treatment and consultative records documented normal gait, intact reflexes, and mixed findings on straight‑leg raising and strength testing.
Treating physician Dr. Sturm initially limited activity but by Jan–Apr 2013 repeatedly noted improvement and opined Jeske could work up to eight‑hour days and lift/carry up to 40 lbs, while suggesting reducing overtime for symptom management.
The ALJ denied benefits; the district court affirmed; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the ALJ applied correct legal standards, supported findings with substantial evidence, adequately explained the decision, and found one of Jeske’s arguments waived.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Step‑3 Listing 1.04 (nerve‑root compression)	ALJ’s step‑three analysis was perfunctory and evidence compels a finding that Listing 1.04A is met	Imaging, exams, and treatment notes do not show all listing criteria (inconsistent SLRs, largely unremarkable imaging, intact reflexes/gait)	Affirmed — substantial evidence supports that Listing 1.04 criteria were not met; ALJ’s RFC discussion reasonably explained step‑3 conclusion
Reliance on daily living activities (ADLs)	ALJ mischaracterized and improperly relied on ADLs to discredit symptoms	ALJ accurately cited claimant’s functional reports and properly used ADLs as one factor in credibility/symptom assessment	Affirmed — ALJ did not equate ADLs with full‑time work and did not misrepresent evidence
Treating‑physician (Dr. Sturm) opinion on work hours	ALJ failed to address Dr. Sturm’s comment suggesting reduce to ~30 hrs/week (an RFC opinion)	Dr. Sturm elsewhere opined claimant could work 8‑hour days and the ‘cut back hours’ comment was advice about overtime/rehabilitation, not a controlling RFC opinion	Affirmed — ALJ gave significant weight to Dr. Sturm’s 8‑hour opinion; no separate discussion of the advisory comment was required
Function‑by‑function RFC (SSR 96‑8p)	ALJ failed to analyze each of the seven strength functions individually	ALJ’s discussion and adoption of specific limitations show consideration of exertional functions; a rigid seven‑part written recitation is not always required	Affirmed — ALJ adequately considered sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling
Concentration/Persistence/Pace (CPP)	ALJ failed to account for CPP limitations	Issue not raised below; therefore waived	Affirmed — argument waived for failure to present in district court

Key Cases Cited

Donahue v. Barnhart, 279 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2002) (substantive standards for DIB and SSI align)
Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2013) (ALJ must build an accurate and logical bridge from evidence to RFC conclusions)
Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence but must support conclusions with substantial evidence)
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1943) (review limited to the grounds the agency invoked)
Curvin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2015) (overlap between step‑3 and RFC explanations can be permissible)
Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 2009) (‘‘give‑way’’ strength testing may reflect submaximal effort and be unreliable)
Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015) (SSR 96‑8p does not always require a rigid, itemized seven‑part RFC write‑up)
Depover v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 563 (8th Cir. 2003) (ALJ may implicitly find no limitation on a function when the record lacks supporting evidence)