Ronald Engstrand v. Carolyn Colvin
788 F.3d 655
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Ronald Engstrand, a former dairy farmer, applied for Social Security Disability and SSI for pain from diabetic neuropathy and osteoarthritis, alleging onset in July 2007.
- Treating physician Dr. Thomas Retzinger (2009–2012) consistently documented neuropathic pain, burning/diminished sensations in feet, intermittent good days, and limited standing/walking; he completed an RFC limiting standing/walking to 2–6 hours, restricting many lower-extremity activities, and requiring environmental limitations.
- Two state-agency reviewers differed: Dr. Janis Byrd generally agreed with Retzinger’s RFC (except push/pull), while Dr. Syd Foster found Engstrand capable of medium work and discounted worsening neuropathy and the treating opinion.
- At hearing Engstrand testified he must alternate positions and lie down about two hours daily; a vocational expert testified some medium jobs existed but a need to lie down two hours would preclude full-time work.
- The ALJ found Engstrand not disabled, credited Dr. Foster, rejected Dr. Retzinger and Dr. Byrd (without explaining Byrd’s rejection), and made multiple adverse credibility findings (relying on monofilament sensation, lack of EMG, sporadic medication use, daily activities, and childcare motives).
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding the ALJ’s adverse credibility finding was patently wrong and that the ALJ improperly “played doctor,” misread the significance of testing and activities, and failed adequately to explain rejection of the treating physician’s opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ’s adverse credibility finding | Engstrand: ALJ improperly discredited his pain testimony and equated sporadic activities with ability to work full-time | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably found testimony inconsistent with objective findings and activities | Reversed — credibility finding patently wrong; ALJ’s reasons unsupported or speculative |
| Reliance on monofilament and lack of EMG | Engstrand: monofilament does not refute pain and diagnostic studies are not required; ALJ improperly “played doctor” | Commissioner: ability to detect 10-gram monofilament and lack of confirmatory tests undercut complaints | Reversed — ALJ erred in treating monofilament as inconsistent with pain and in demanding EMG without record support |
| Treatment noncompliance and medication use | Engstrand: noncompliance had valid reasons (intolerance, cost); one ‘‘fine’’ note doesn’t show sustained improvement | Commissioner: sporadic medication use and partial compliance indicate less severe impairment | Reversed — ALJ failed to probe reasons and improperly relied on selective notes to infer improvement |
| Evaluation of treating physician’s opinion | Engstrand: Dr. Retzinger’s RFC should have controlling or at least well-explained weight; ALJ’s credibility errors tainted RFC analysis | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly gave greater weight to examining/reviewing medical evidence (Dr. Foster) | Reversed — ALJ did not provide a persuasive, supported reason to reject treating opinion and ignored/rejected contrary agency opinion without explanation |
Key Cases Cited
- Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668 (7th Cir.) (claimant testimony crediting can establish disability when daily lying down requirement exists)
- Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929 (7th Cir.) (standard for reviewing ALJ decisions and requirement for specific reasons in credibility findings)
- Pierce v. Colvin, 739 F.3d 1046 (7th Cir.) (erroneous credibility findings require remand unless testimony is incredible on its face)
- Goins v. Colvin, 764 F.3d 677 (7th Cir.) (ALJs must not ‘‘play doctor’’ by interpreting raw medical data without expert support)
- Moon v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 718 (7th Cir.) (ALJs must rely on expert opinions for medical interpretation)
- Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631 (7th Cir.) (treating physician opinions ordinarily merit controlling weight absent persuasive reasons)
- Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685 (7th Cir.) (sporadic or part-time activities do not necessarily contradict disability)
- Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118 (7th Cir.) (full-time work requires sustained capacity; part-time/limited activities not dispositive)