Riley Forsythe v. Carolyn Colvin, 813 F.3d 677

Plaintiff applied for Social Security disability benefits; ALJ denied benefits finding claimant could perform unskilled sedentary work; district court affirmed; appeal followed.
Relevant medical history: prior kneecap and femur fractures with hardware, 2011 ankle fracture stabilized with pins and later revised; chronic ankle pain, tendinitis, paresthesias, and possible neuralgia.
2012 treating records (Eckerman, Logan) reported severe, persistent pain, limited sitting/standing/walking (often ~15 minutes), occasional lifting limits, and a declaration of “fully and completely disabled.”
Surgery to remove ankle hardware in Feb 2013; subsequent notes described improvement, less pain, full active range of motion, and a statement that work status was light activity, but other records and claimant testimony indicated ongoing severe pain and narcotic use.
ALJ discounted treating opinions and claimant’s pain testimony, relied on a vocational expert (VE) identifying three sedentary jobs available in Wisconsin with round-number job counts; court found multiple analytical and evidentiary defects and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ properly evaluated claimant's subjective pain and functional limitations	Treating records and testimony show persistent, severe pain preventing 8-hr workdays	ALJ: imaging and some post-op notes show improvement; medical opinions inconsistent with disability	ALJ failed to adequately reconcile records and testimony; judgment reversed and remanded
Whether claimant can perform full-time sedentary work (40 hrs/wk)	Claimant cannot sit/stand for required durations or tolerate full workweek	VE testimony that claimant could perform certain sedentary unskilled jobs	ALJ did not explain how claimant could meet full-time requirements; remand required
Proper weight to treating physicians' opinions (Eckerman, Logan)	Treating physicians opined substantial limits / total disability	ALJ gave little weight, citing improvement and perceived inconsistencies	ALJ ignored or mischaracterized key treating reports and failed to justify discounting; remand required
Adequacy of vocational expert testimony and job-number evidence	VE testimony supports disability findings when probative	ALJ relied on VE’s round numbers and classifications to find jobs available	VE testimony was insufficiently explained and unreliable; ALJ erred in relying on it; remand and better vocational support needed

Engstrand v. Colvin, 788 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2015) (courts must account for difference between household activities and ability to sustain full-time work)
Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2014) (limitations of daily activities as evidence of work capacity)
Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2014) (evaluation of claimant testimony and medical evidence)
Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2013) (restrictions on inferring work ability from home activities)
Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556 (7th Cir. 2009) (credibility and RFC assessment)
Herrmann v. Colvin, 772 F.3d 1110 (7th Cir. 2014) (scrutiny of vocational expert evidence)
Browning v. Colvin, 766 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2014) (limitations of VE testimony and need for adequate explanation)
Brault v. Social Security Admin., 683 F.3d 443 (2d Cir. 2012) (criticizing inadequately explained vocational testimony)
Guiton v. Colvin, [citation="546 F. App'x 137"] (4th Cir. 2013) (concurring opinion addressing VE evidence weaknesses)

Ruling: Reversed and remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.