Robert Filus v. Michael Astrue
694 F.3d 863
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Filus, a 50-year-old former truck driver, applied for disability benefits claiming back pain since 1996.
- An ALJ previously denied his 1997 claim and, in 1999, found a restricted light work range; Filus did not appeal.
- In 2003 Filus reapplied; medical evidence included back problems and degenerative disc disease; two state physicians later found possible medium work.
- In 2007 and 2009 hearings, Filus testified about pain, daily activities, and limited ability to sit, stand, or walk.
- The ALJ ultimately found Filus not disabled, applying a residual functional capacity for light work with 30-minute sit/stand intervals and other moderate limitations.
- The Appeals Council remanded for updated evidence; additional opinions from Dr. Kachmann, Dr. Sajadi, and Dr. Owen were considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Listing 1.04A or equivalent applies | Filus argues impairment equals 1.04A neuro-anatomic root compression. | ALJ properly credited state physicians who found no formal 1.04A listing. | ALJ did not err; not met or medically equalized by record. |
| Whether Listing 1.04C applies | Filus contends lumbar stenosis with ineffective ambulation meets 1.04C. | Record shows effective ambulation; 1.04C not satisfied. | ALJ correctly found not met; walking ability sufficed. |
| Whether RFC is supported by substantial evidence | RFC should reflect greater limitations from pain and tests. | Record supports light work with sit/stand every 30 minutes and other modest restrictions. | RFC supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed medical opinions | ALJ undervalued treating and non-treating physicians (Kachmann, Sajadi, Owen). | ALJ provided valid reasons: infrequent treatment, cursory exams, and inconsistent findings. | Yes; opinions discounting were adequately supported. |
| Whether credibility determination of pain is proper | Filus's pain should be fully credited given daily activities and testing. | ALJ integrated daily activities, medication use, and testimony to assess credibility. | Credibility finding not patently wrong; supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scheck v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2004) (two opinions supporting ALJ's reliance on other substantial evidence)
- Steward v. Bowen, 858 F.2d 1299 (7th Cir. 1988) (evaluating listed impairment and substantial evidence)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2012) (vocational-evidence context and boilerplate credibility language)
- Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2008) (credibility and medical-opinion assessment standards)
- Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. 2008) (ALJ must base credibility on comprehensive evidence)
- Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2007) (opinion weight and supportability in medical-evidence analysis)