Pawlowski v. Astrue
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85634
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Pawlow s ki applied for DIB in 2006 alleging disability March 1, 2003 due to DDD, herniated discs, arthritis, depression, PTSD, panic attacks, migraines; insured status expired March 31, 2006; ALJ found she could perform light work with limited contact; Appeals Council denied review; district court review sought by Pawlowski.
- Medical record shows initial spinal issues in 2004 with degenerative changes and disc problems; February 2006 MRI showed lumbar L3-4, L4-5, L5-S1 changes with no clear nerve root effacement; March 2006 pain complaints and epidural injection with temporary relief; hip replacement after insured period; treating and reviewing physicians offered conflicting views on disabling status.
- VE testified that a light-work-capable individual with limited contact could perform several sedentary jobs, but not Pawlowski’s past work; the ALJ concluded Pawlowski could perform light work with occasional contact and could perform other jobs in the economy; final decision denied DIB.
- Pawlowski challenges the ALJ’s failure to equate her condition with listing 1.04C (spine disorders with pseudoclaudication) or 1.04A (nerve root compression), and contends the MRI evidence supports disability; court upholds ALJ’s determination as supported by substantial evidence and harmless error.
- Court discusses credibility findings, medical evidence interpretation, and harmless error analysis, ultimately denying Pawlowski’s remand and granting Commissioner’s summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly applied listing 1.04C. | Pawlowski argues MRI shows nerve root effacement; 1.04C satisfied. | ALJ correctly found no effective ambulation impairment; MRI ambiguous and misreadings resolved in context. | ALJ not required to remand; listing not met. |
| Whether MRI report misread by the ALJ. | Dr. Kim’s findings show nerve root involvement. | Ambiguity resolved by treating IMPRESSION; no error in reliance on IMPRESSION. | No reversible error; harmless given overall record. |
| Whether the credibility determination was proper. | Pawlowski’s pain complaints credible and disabling. | ALJ properly discounted subjective complaints due to inconsistency with objective findings. | Credibility finding supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether the ALJ provided a logical bridge from evidence to findings. | ALJ’s reasoning insufficiently explains denial. | ALJ cited substantial evidence and consistent with law. | ALJ’s connection between evidence and conclusion adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503 (7th Cir.2009) (extremely limited judicial review; Must rely on substantial evidence)
- Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408 (7th Cir.2008) (limits on deference; must assess credibility and evidence consistency)
- Shramek v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 809 (7th Cir.2000) (ALJ must build a logical bridge from evidence to conclusions)
- Fisher v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 1055 (7th Cir.1989) (remedial standard for remand not automatic on minor ambiguities)
- Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668 (7th Cir.2008) (remand not required for every evident error; context matters)