Rincon Avitia v. Colvin, 2:14-cv-00012

Background

Plaintiff Gelacio Rincon Avitia applied for Social Security disability benefits and was denied at initial and reconsideration stages, a hearing before an ALJ occurred, and the Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision final.
Plaintiff alleged disability due to back problems, arthritis, anxiety, and depression, with a onset date of October 30, 2010; MRI showed L2-L3 disc herniation and L4-L5/L5-S1 bulges.
Medical records show conservative treatment for RA, includingPlaquenil, Enbrel, prednisone, and later Remicade; physical therapy and injections were used; pain management included opioids and neuropathic agents.
During the hearing, plaintiff testified in Spanish, with limited English ability, an eighth grade education, long residence in the U.S., and prior employment as a heavy, unskilled garbage collector; he described pain and limitations in lifting and daily activities.
The ALJ found rheumatoid arthritis as a severe impairment, considered diabetes and hypertension non-severe, assessed an RFC for light work with various postural and communication limits, and credited VE testimony to find other work; the decision was reversed and remanded due to multiple issues with credibility, treating-source weight, and English-language ability.
The district court remanded for further proceedings to address (1) severe impairment determination including back issues, (2) credibility assessment, (3) weight given to Dr. Truong’s treating opinions, and (4) English-language capability under Grid Rule 201.17.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ properly identified the severe impairments at Step 2.	Rincon Avitia argues back impairment should be severe and considered in combination with RA.	Colvin asserts RA alone supported severity and back issues were not independently disabling.	Remand required for proper Step 2 analysis and consideration of all impairments.
Whether the ALJ properly assessed the claimant’s credibility.	Plaintiff contends the credibility analysis relied on daily activities and sparse work history to discount pain.	The ALJ permissibly used daily activities and objective findings to assess credibility.	Remand to reconsider credibility with proper articulation and full record consideration.
Whether the ALJ properly weighed Dr. Truong’s treating opinions.	Treating physician opinions should have more weight given their basis in treatment and specialty.	Non-examining opinions supported the RFC.	Remand to reevaluate treating-source evidence with proper legal standards.
Whether the ALJ erred in finding English literacy/communication sufficient.	Plaintiff could not read or write English and had limited ability to communicate; Grid 201.00(i) may apply.	For unskilled sedentary/ light work, English literacy has limited significance for most jobs.	Remand to reassess English language ability and Grid Rule application.

Key Cases Cited

Schomas v. Colvin, 732 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2013) (final SSA decision reviewed for proper legal standards and substantial evidence)
Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2005) (burden shift at Step 5 and vocational framework)
Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2009) (credibility and lack of objective support caution in discounting pain)
Indoranto v. Barnhart, 374 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2004) (court-on-review requires tracing ALJ reasoning and not deferring undisclosed gaps)
Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001) (guard against improper discounting of treating-source opinions)
Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2009) (combined effects of impairments must be considered; Grid usage clarified)