Schomas v. Colvin
732 F.3d 702
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Randy Schomas (appl. for DIB, alleged onset Dec. 19, 2007) injured his back at work and has scoliosis, degenerative disc disease, and hip arthritis; he stopped working after a layoff in Feb. 2008.
- Medical history: initial conservative care (OT clinic, NSAIDs, muscle relaxant, chiropractic, PT), two orthopedic evaluations, steroid injections, and ultimately major back surgery (anterior lumbar interbody fusion, laminotomy, partial facetectomy) in July 2009.
- Multiple RFC assessments: state-agency reviewer (Dr. Zimmerman, April 2008) found capacity for light work; other evaluators (Emanuelson, Sept. 2008; PT Slevin, Jan. 2010) gave more restrictive findings; treating surgeons varied in work restrictions over time.
- At the ALJ hearing (May 2010) Schomas testified to persistent pain, medication side effects (fatigue, difficulty concentrating), and limits on walking, standing, and sitting; a VE identified some light jobs that would remain available if concentration stayed ≥85%.
- ALJ concluded Schomas could perform light work (RFC based on state-agency assessment), could not do past work, but could perform other jobs — denied benefits; district court affirmed and Schomas appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ overstated RFC | ALJ ignored treating physicians’ work restrictions and relied on PT Slevin while overlooking Slevin’s limitation to only occasional sitting/standing/walking, which precludes light work | ALJ credited state-agency RFC (Zimmerman) over others; any articulation gap is harmless because Zimmerman’s light-work RFC is supported by record | Waived most arguments; on merits court finds ALJ’s failure to fully explain weight accorded assessments harmless — affirmation affirmed |
| Whether ALJ’s credibility finding was supported | ALJ used boilerplate and failed to consider medication side effects, fatigue, concentration limits, and other SSR 96-7(c) factors | Boilerplate permissible if followed by specific reasons; claimant’s district-court briefing failed to preserve or develop these points | Finding problematic in places but largely waived; ALJ should have better addressed concentration/medication effects but error not preserved — decision upheld |
| Whether ALJ’s reliance on lack of ER/hospital visits was proper | Claimant: drawing adverse inference from lack of ER visits substitutes ALJ’s lay judgment for medical opinion; continuous pain can be treated without ER visits | Commissioner: frequency of ER/hospital visits is a permissible factor in credibility analysis | Court agrees ER-visits inference is weak here given increasingly aggressive treatment (narcotics, injections, surgery) but plaintiff waived full challenge; overall no reversible error |
| Whether remand required for articulation of reasons for weighing conflicting RFCs | Schomas: ALJ failed to build a logical bridge explaining why Zimmerman’s RFC was credited over others | Commissioner: harmless error doctrine applies; record supports Zimmerman’s RFC so remand would not change outcome | Court applies harmless-error standard and declines remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2013) (review of ALJ as Commissioner’s final decision after Appeals Council denial)
- Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2004) (failure to raise arguments below results in waiver)
- Schoenfeld v. Apfel, 237 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2001) (issues not preserved in district court are waived on appeal)
- McKinzey v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 2011) (harmless-error review of ALJ’s articulation regarding medical opinions)
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2013) (boilerplate language in credibility findings is permissible if followed by specific reasons)
- Shauger v. Astrue, 675 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2012) (ALJ must build a logical bridge when discrediting subjective symptom testimony)