Mueller v. Colvin
524 F. App'x 282
7th Cir.2013Background
- Mueller applied for disability benefits and supplemental security income, citing lower back pain, hip pain, obesity, asthma, hypertension, and high cholesterol.
- ALJ found Mueller not disabled, discredited credibility, and found she could perform light work with limitations.
- MRI showed minimal bulging in the back, moderate spinal stenosis at one disk, borderline stenosis at another; hips with minimal degenerative changes.
- Dr. Patey opined Mueller could stand/walk about six hours in an eight-hour day and sit for six hours, with only occasional bending and stooping, relying on Dr. Villa-nueva’s findings.
- Mueller testified to substantial limitations (need for cane/walker, leg elevation, leg swelling) and widespread daily activity care for her mother.
- VE testified jobs exist for light/sedentary work but none if a walker or leg-elevation requirement were constant; ALJ relied on Patey’s RFC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of credibility analysis | Mueller argues the ALJ gave meaningless boilerplate and failed to reason specific inconsistencies. | Mueller's credibility is determined by objective evidence and daily activities; boilerplate suffices if supported by record. | Harmless error; substantial evidence supports the credibility assessment. |
| Obesity consideration in RFC | ALJ should address obesity's impact under SSR 02-1p. | Obesity not addressed only if not shown to aggravate condition; evidence insufficient. | Harmless error; Mueller did not explain how obesity aggravated disability. |
| Conflict between physician findings | ALJ should discuss potential conflict between Dr. Villanueva’s 50-degree bend and Dr. Patey’s occasional stooping. | No conflict since Dr. Patey relied on Villanueva’s finding. | No remand needed; no unresolved conflict. |
| Harmless error standard in credibility | Boilerplate error is reversible if not harmless. | If RFC aligns with record, harmless error may apply. | Applicable; substantial record supports affirmance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir.2012) (opacity of boilerplate credibility language rejected)
- Parker v. Astrue, 597 F.3d 920 (7th Cir.2010) (reliable, specific reasons required)
- Filus v. Astrue, 694 F.3d 863 (7th Cir.2012) (need for specific credibility reasons)
- Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306 (7th Cir.2012) (requirement of specific credibility findings)
- Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558 (7th Cir.2009) (supporting specific reasoning for credibility)
- Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751 (7th Cir.2004) (quality of ALJ reasoning on credibility)
- Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881 (7th Cir.2001) (potential conflicts in medical testimony)
- Spiva v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 346 (7th Cir.2010) (harmless error doctrine in credibility)
- Allord v. Barnhart, 455 F.3d 818 (7th Cir.2006) (harmless error in credibility evaluation)
- Golembiewski v. Barnhart, 322 F.3d 917 (7th Cir.2003) (resolve conflicts in medical opinions)