Reading-Tieman v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:15-cv-00155
N.D. Ind.Jun 24, 2016Background
- Dorris Reading Tieman applied for Disability Insurance and SSI benefits alleging disability beginning November 3, 2011; the ALJ denied benefits and the Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found Tieman’s COPD, obesity, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, PTSD, and cannabis abuse were severe but did not meet/list any Listings and that she retained capacity for work in the national economy.
- The ALJ relied on select medical evidence, GAF scores, and Tieman’s treatment history and daily activities in assessing mental functional limitations.
- Tieman challenged the decision in federal court, arguing the ALJ: (1) overemphasized daily activities, (2) used boilerplate language improperly, and (3) improperly analyzed and weighed mental-health evidence.
- The district court found error in the ALJ’s analysis of the mental-health evidence (playing doctor and cherry-picking), declined to reach the daily-activities and boilerplate issues because remand was required, and remanded the case to the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ "playing doctor" / drawing medical conclusions | ALJ substituted her own medical judgments for experts when explaining decline in mental health (attributing it to situational stress, speculating about drug effects) | ALJ’s interpretation is a permissible reading of the record supporting moderate limitations | Court: ALJ impermissibly drew medical conclusions without medical support; error requires remand |
| Cherry-picking medical evidence / weighing GAFs | ALJ ignored lower GAF scores and relied selectively on a later GAF of 55 and state-reviewer opinion while discounting consultative examiner (GAF 40) without adequate explanation | Commissioner relied on state agency psychologist and other records to justify weight given | Court: ALJ failed to build a logical bridge; inconsistent treatment of GAFs and opinions constituted patent error; remand required |
| Drawing adverse inferences from limited treatment | Tieman testified she often could not afford treatment/medication; ALJ relied on lack of intensive psychiatric care to discount severity without addressing her explanations | ALJ viewed sparse treatment as undermining severity findings | Court: ALJ erred by not considering claimant’s explanations for limited treatment; supports remand |
| Alleged overemphasis on daily activities and use of boilerplate language | ALJ overstated daily activities and relied on boilerplate credibility language | Commissioner defends characterization as within ALJ discretion | Court: Did not decide—no ruling because remand ordered on mental-health errors; standards noted for future proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2005) (district court reviews ALJ for legal error and substantial evidence)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Scott v. Barnhart, 297 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2002) (ALJ must build a logical bridge from evidence to conclusions)
- Murphy v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2014) (deference to ALJ credibility findings but must be explained)
- Murphy v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2007) (ALJs may not "play doctor" by drawing medical conclusions without expert support)
- Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419 (7th Cir. 2010) (ALJ may not cherry-pick evidence while ignoring disability-supporting records)
- Yurt v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must adequately explain weight given to GAF scores and medical opinions)