Plessinger v. Berryhill
900 F.3d 909
7th Cir.2018Background
- Claimant George Plessinger applied for Social Security disability benefits for chronic back pain after a 2012 accident and failed back surgery syndrome following a 2013 lumbar operation.
- Medical record: MRIs showing multiple disc extrusions and root effacement; treating pain specialist Dr. Coleman and consulting examiner Dr. Laurente documented limited walking (Coleman: ~50 yards; Laurente: 20–30 feet), positive straight-leg tests, radiculopathy, and ongoing function-limiting stenosis.
- Non‑examining state reviewers conflicted: Dr. Cocoran (light work) vs. Dr. Sands (sedentary work); independent medical expert Dr. John Pella (pulmonologist) testified at hearing without examining claimant and opined capacity for sedentary work with sit/stand option.
- At hearing claimant testified he must lie down several times per day, walks only short distances, and requires frequent breaks; vocational expert said such lying-down would preclude competitive employment.
- ALJ gave great weight to Dr. Pella, discounted some consulting examiners, found claimant not fully credible without detailed analysis, concluded claimant could perform sedentary unskilled jobs, denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review and district court affirmed.
- Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding the ALJ improperly relied on the non‑examining medical expert, failed to adequately weigh treating/examining opinions, and made an unsupported credibility finding; also noted listing 1.04A needed fresh consideration on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plessinger's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly relied on non‑examining medical expert (Dr. Pella) over treating/examining doctors | ALJ placed undue weight on Dr. Pella, who never examined him and is not an orthopedics/neurology specialist; treating records support greater limitation | Dr. Pella’s testimony is permissible and ALJ may rely on a medical expert’s interpretation of records | Reversed: ALJ erred by giving "great weight" to Dr. Pella without addressing his limits (no exam, not specialist) and without explaining why he discounted treating/examining opinions |
| Whether ALJ properly assessed claimant’s credibility about pain and need to lie down during day | Credibility finding unsupported; claimant’s testimony consistent with records and prescriptions; VE said lying down precludes employment | ALJ found claimant’s subjective complaints inconsistent with overall record and relied on ME testimony | Reversed: ALJ failed to conduct required credibility analysis, improperly deferred credibility determinations to non‑examining ME, and used boilerplate language without specific inconsistencies |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating/examining physicians’ opinions (Drs. Coleman, Laurente, Phookan) | Treating/examining opinions showed greater functional limits and should have been credited over non‑examining opinions | ALJ discounted those opinions as inconsistent with other record evidence | Reversed: ALJ failed to explain why he favored Dr. Pella over treating/examining doctors and cherry-picked portions of records |
| Whether ALJ adequately considered Listing 1.04A (spinal disorders) | Medical evidence (nerve root compression signs, positive straight‑leg tests, motor/sensory findings) may meet/equal Listing 1.04A | Commissioner argued waiver and that ME’s opinion supports non‑listing | Not decided on merits — court found ALJ’s terse reliance on ME insufficient to permit meaningful review; remand required to address listing on rehearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Kepple v. Massanari, 268 F.3d 513 (7th Cir. 2001) (non‑specialist expert testimony can be admissible but specialty matters in weighing opinions)
- Vanprooyen v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2017) (treating physician’s opinion generally trumps non‑examining consultants absent record support for discounting)
- Yurt v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 2014) (ALJs may not cherry‑pick favorable evidence while ignoring contrary record evidence)
- Stark v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2016) (boilerplate credibility language is insufficient without specific supporting reasons)
- Pierce v. Colvin, 739 F.3d 1046 (7th Cir. 2014) (erroneous credibility finding requires remand unless testimony is incredible or decision didn’t depend on credibility)
- Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 2012) (broad challenges to ALJ RFC analysis can preserve more specific issues on appeal)
- Kastner v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2012) (ALJ must build a logical bridge from evidence to conclusion to permit meaningful appellate review)
- Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must explain consideration of pertinent evidence so court can discern reasoning)
- Schmidt v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2005) (same; ALJ must provide adequate rationale linking evidence to conclusions)
- Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2004) (prescription of strong pain medication can corroborate claimant’s allegations of severe pain)