Nowakowski v. Social Security Administration
1:16-cv-07904
N.D. Ill.Sep 13, 2017Background
- Nowakowski applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability from December 17, 2010, due to back problems (post‑laminectomy/fusion), fibromyalgia, migraines, anxiety, and insomnia; the ALJ denied benefits and the Appeals Council declined review.
- Medical record: conservatively managed back pain with mostly normal motor/sensory findings; consultative exam found full strength, normal gait, and positive fibromyalgia trigger points; MRIs showed postoperative status without significant canal compromise.
- Treating notes from primary care Dr. Bhalala were inconsistent and largely routine; he did not provide a formal functional‑capacity opinion.
- State agency reviewers found nonsevere mental impairment and an RFC for light work (stand/walk ~6 hours; lift 20/10 lbs); ALJ gave those opinions substantial weight.
- Plaintiff testified to significant pain, need to alternate positions frequently, daily use of strong narcotics (Fentanyl patch, Norco), limited household activities, and poor sleep.
- ALJ: found severe impairments of post‑lumbar fusion/degenerative disease, asthma, and arthralgia; fibromyalgia and mental conditions nonsevere; RFC for light work with restrictions on climbing and only occasional posturals; could perform past relevant clerical work — claim denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff met or equaled Listing 1.04 (disorders of the spine) | Nowakowski argued her spinal symptoms (spasms, tenderness) met/equaled Listing 1.04 | Commissioner noted no operative/pathology confirmation or imaging meeting Listing criteria; state reviewers found no listing‑level impairment | Court: ALJ did not err; plaintiff failed to meet burden to show listing criteria were satisfied |
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated subjective symptom statements | Plaintiff asserted ALJ improperly discounted her pain and need to alternate positions frequently | Commissioner argued ALJ considered activities, treatment, meds, exam findings, and SSR 16‑3p factors when assessing symptom intensity/persistence | Court: ALJ’s symptom evaluation was supported by specific reasons and substantial evidence |
| Whether the RFC is supported by substantial evidence | Nowakowski said RFC failed because ALJ discounted testimony and favored non‑examining reviewers over treating notes | Commissioner argued state consultant opinions were consistent with objective evidence and treating physician gave no functional opinion to contradict them | Court: RFC supported by substantial evidence; ALJ permissibly relied on consultative and state‑agency opinions |
| Whether ALJ erred by not assigning weight to treating physician | Plaintiff contended ALJ should have credited treating source more heavily | Commissioner noted treating physician’s records were inconsistent and contained no functional RFC opinion | Court: Any failure to state weight was harmless because Dr. Bhalala offered no functional opinion and record overwhelmingly supports ALJ’s decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Herron v. Shalala, 19 F.3d 329 (7th Cir.) (administrative decision becomes final when Appeals Council denies review)
- Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118 (7th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must build a "logical bridge" between evidence and conclusion)
- Filus v. Astrue, 694 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2012) (claimant bears burden to show she meets or equals a listing)
- Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2009) (factors for evaluating claimant’s symptom statements)
- Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556 (7th Cir. 2009) (ALJ must give specific reasons for credibility findings supported by substantial evidence)
- Castile v. Astrue, 617 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2010) (court gives ALJ’s opinion a commonsensical reading)
- Flener v. Barnhart, 361 F.3d 442 (7th Cir. 2004) (ALJ may rely on non‑examining medical experts who are specialists in disability evaluation)
- Spiva v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2010) (harmless error standard where remand would be futile)