Patricia Hughes v. Michael Astrue
705 F.3d 276
7th Cir.2013Background
- Applicant, 57, diagnosed with adhesive capsulitis and COPD; 2003–2007 gap in treatment due to no insurance/low income; last substantial work as a hotel night-clerk auditor requiring lifting and clerical tasks; examiner Elmes found bilateral shoulder ROM limits and 10-pound lifting limit; ALJ discounted Elmes's findings and found past work feasible, leading to denial and district court affirmation
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did ALJ properly evaluate Dr. Elmes's exam findings? | Elmes's 90-minute exam showed 10-pound lift limit; ALJ ignored. | Elmes's report not consistent with record evidence; not reliable. | No; remand required for proper consideration of Elmes's findings. |
| Did ALJ err by discounting degenerative rotator cuff disease evidence? | Evidence showed shoulder degenerative disease and ROM limits. | Record did not support disabling limitations. | Yes; needed reconsideration of shoulder impairment. |
| Did ALJ improperly equate daily activities with work ability? | Household tasks do not equal full-time employment; flexible ADLs ignored. | ADL performance supports non-disability. | Yes; errors in evaluating daily activities as work capacity. |
| Did ALJ err in relying on past relevant work given lifting limitations and misreading weight? | Past work involved lifting; Elmes limited to 10 pounds intermittently. | Past work may still be feasible. | Yes; remand to reassess past relevant work. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2012) (repeated mischaracterizations of daily activities vs. work)
- Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (analysis of SSA judge reasoning; employer standards differ from ADLs)
- Gentle v. Barnhart, 430 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2005) (concerns about improper evaluation of evidence)
- Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security, 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (limits of ADLs vs employment standards)
- Draper v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 2005) (criticizes rigid interpretation of medical evidence)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 329 U.S. 80 ((1933)) (Chenery doctrine; agencies must base decisions on proper grounds)
- Kastner v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2012) (applies Chenery-like critique to agency’s reasoning)