551 F. App'x 868
7th Cir.2014Background
- Olsen is 44 with degenerative disc disease and carpal tunnel syndrome; SSA denied disability benefits and district court upheld.
- Olsen applied for benefits in 2007, alleging onset in 2004; date last insured was December 31, 2009.
- ALJ found Olsen’s MRI results showed mild abnormalities and that treatment was conservative; Olsen challenged credibility and RFC.
- State agency physicians concluded Olsen could perform about six hours of sitting/standing in an eight-hour day; found no significant impairments.
- Olsen underwent multiple treatments (physical therapy, epidural injections, carpal tunnel release) with varying reported relief; no physician opined she was fully disabled.
- ALJ determined Olsen could perform medium work with some postural and manipulatory limitations; VE testified Olsen could perform her past work or other jobs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ mischaracterize MRI evidence as mild? | Olsen argues the ALJ misread MRIs and substituted own judgment. | Commissioner contends ALJ summarized MRI results and reasonably found mild abnormalities. | No reversible error; substantial evidence supports mild interpretation. |
| Was the credibility assessment proper based on daily activities and hearing? | Olsen contends daily activities show greater disability and the ALJ misread testimony. | Commissioner argues credibility was properly weighed against medical evidence and observed behavior. | Credibility assessment sustained; consistent with record and observations. |
| Did the RFC for medium work have substantial support despite the Kanuru and therapist opinions? | Olsen claims RFC overstated abilities given pain and hand limitations. | Commissioner argues state physicians’ medical evidence supports medium work; conflicting opinions are weighed. | RFC supported by substantial evidence; non-controlling opinions appropriately discounted. |
| Was the Kanuru form and therapist opinion properly handled? | Olsen claims Kanuru form relied on subjective claims and hearing-day inputs. | Commissioner notes form not based on objective medical data and is inconsistent with other records. | Properly discounted; based on lack of consistency with objective record evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672 (7th Cir.2009) (avoid substituting own medical judgment without support)
- Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863 (7th Cir.2000) (reversal when physician’s opinion rejected without evidence)
- Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171 (7th Cir.2001) (ALJ did not play doctor; thorough discussion of evidence)
- Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833 (7th Cir.2007) (ALJ may discount opinion not based on medical evidence)
- Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620 (7th Cir.2008) (weight to opinions anchored in objective data)
- Rice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363 (7th Cir.2004) (reliance on objective observations over subjective reports)