Mike Butler v. Kilolo Kijakazi, 4 F.4th 498

Mike Butler applied for Title II disability benefits, alleging disability from Nov. 4, 2015; ALJ denied benefits and Appeals Council declined review.
ALJ found Butler unable to perform past relevant work but assigned an RFC for light work with multiple exertional and non‑exertional restrictions (e.g., limits on climbing, exposure, left-side reaching/gripping, no hazards).
Because non‑exertional limits prevented use of the grids alone, the ALJ obtained VE testimony about jobs Butler could perform.
VE identified three unskilled light occupations available nationwide (~136,000 jobs) and ~3,050 jobs in Indiana; ALJ relied on that testimony to deny benefits at Step 5.
Butler challenged the decision, arguing (1) improper application of the grids given his age (50–54) and erosion of occupational base from left‑upper‑extremity limits, and (2) the ALJ failed to state regional job numbers in the written decision as required.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed: finding the ALJ properly used a VE where non‑exertional limits applied and that any omission of Indiana figures from the written decision was a harmless, pro forma error because the VE had testified to regional numbers and Butler did not dispute them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ improperly relied on the grids instead of VE given Butler's age and limits	Butler: grids should control because age (closely approaching advanced) + reduced occupational base warrant disability	Commissioner: ALJ recognized age and used VE because non‑exertional limits make grids insufficient	ALJ properly used VE; affirmed
Whether left upper‑extremity limits eroded occupational base enough to require finding of disability	Butler: occasional left reaching/handling/fingering erodes light/sedentary unskilled base substantially	Commissioner: non‑exertional effect unclear; VE assessed actual job availability given limits	VE testimony sufficed to show significant jobs remain; ALJ decision upheld
Whether ALJ erred by cutting off cross‑examination of VE	Butler: ALJ curtailed cross‑exam so erosion effect not fully explored	Commissioner: record contains VE answers quantifying jobs; no challenge to VE reliability	No reversible error; ALJ procedure appropriate and VE testimony adequate
Whether ALJ failed to comply with regulation to state regional job numbers in decision	Butler: written decision omitted Indiana job numbers, violating 20 C.F.R. §404.1560(c)(1)	Commissioner: VE testified to national and Indiana numbers; omission in opinion was pro forma and harmless	Harmless error; remand unnecessary because result would not change

DeFrancesco v. Bowen, 867 F.2d 1040 (7th Cir. 1989) (where claimant can do some but not all light work, ALJ should consult a vocational specialist rather than rely mechanically on the grids)
Haynes v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2005) (grids apply to exertional limits; consult VE when non‑exertional limits may substantially reduce job range)
Luna v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 1994) (ALJ must consult a VE when non‑exertional limitations might substantially reduce work range)
McKinzey v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 2011) (harmless‑error standard for ALJ omissions; remand unnecessary if outcome predictable)
Spiva v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2010) (court will not remand when agency would reach same result on remand)
Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2005) (overview of five‑step disability evaluation)
O'Connor‑Spinner v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2010) (ALJ must build a logical bridge from evidence to conclusions)
Yurt v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 2014) (substantial‑evidence standard of review)
Zero Zone, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 832 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2016) (harmless‑error principles in administrative review)