Slip Opinion
N.D. Ill.2020Background
- Plaintiff applied for SSI with an alleged onset of May 25, 2012; ALJ denied benefits after hearing and the Appeals Council denied review. Case reviewed in federal district court.
- Medical record documents bipolar/schizoaffective disorder, alcohol abuse, two 2016 psychiatric hospitalizations, and ongoing anger/impulsivity and social conflict.
- Treatment notes and providers reported significant functional difficulties (disorganization, anger outbursts, trouble maintaining employment); a counselor opined Plaintiff would have great difficulty maintaining work.
- Plaintiff was homeless or housing‑unstable for much of 2016–2017 and testified at the hearing she had been homeless since July 2016.
- The ALJ found a sedentary RFC with limited social contact and no public contact but discounted Plaintiff’s symptom statements as only “slightly consistent,” relying heavily on gaps in psychiatric treatment and alleged noncompliance with medication.
- District court reversed and remanded, holding the ALJ erred by failing to consider whether homelessness explained Plaintiff’s failure to pursue treatment and by not developing the record on that point (per SSR 16‑3p guidance).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly discounted symptoms for failure to seek treatment | ALJ improperly relied on lack of psychiatric treatment to discount symptoms without considering homelessness or other valid reasons for not pursuing care | ALJ permissibly considered noncompliance and lack of treatment as a basis to discount symptom reports | Court held ALJ erred: he failed to consider reasons for not seeking treatment (e.g., homelessness) as required by SSR 16‑3p and applicable precedent; remand required |
| Whether ALJ adequately developed the record before discounting credibility | ALJ had a duty to probe and develop evidence about why Plaintiff lacked treatment given her homelessness; failure prejudiced review | Commissioner contended record supported ALJ’s conclusions | Court held ALJ failed to develop the record on this crucial issue and did not build a logical bridge from evidence to conclusion; remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Haynes v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2005) (district court reviews final Commissioner decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g))
- Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2000) (ALJ must build an accurate and logical bridge from evidence to conclusion)
- Stevenson v. Chater, 105 F.3d 1151 (7th Cir. 1997) (scope of judicial review of ALJ findings)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence standard)
- Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2007) (court may not reweigh evidence; standard for substantial evidence review)
- Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. 2008) (ALJ decision must be supported even if reasonable minds could differ)
- Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001) (ALJ must provide some glimpse into reasoning)
- Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2005) (ALJ must minimally articulate analysis to permit meaningful appellate review)
- Murphy v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2007) (ALJ has duty to fully develop the record)
- Boiles v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2005) (ALJ must adequately articulate analysis)
- Carlson v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 180 (7th Cir. 1993) (ALJ must consider reasons claimants give for not pursuing treatment)