Shauger v. Astrue
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5961
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Shauger, 50, is a former welder with left sixth nerve palsy causing double vision and headaches; disability onset alleged in 2004, application filed August 2007.
- Diagnosed initially in 1988 with abducens nerve palsy; cause unknown after extensive testing; condition persisted with headaches emerging or worsening over time.
- Shauger operated a welding business until 2004; impairment purportedly worsened, leading to sale of the business; applied for benefits while residing in Florida.
- ALJ denied disability benefits, finding Shauger not disabled, and gave little consideration to headaches; relied heavily on Dr. Nafoosi’s opinion.
- Vocational expert identified potential jobs but noted limitations if headaches caused unscheduled breaks or spatial constraints; Dr. Gorelik later recommended prism glasses.
- Seventh Circuit reversed, holding the credibility evaluation and consideration of treatment history and medical evidence were deficient, and remanded for further SSA proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the ALJ's credibility finding supported by the record? | Shauger argues credibility was improperly rejected for headaches. | Astrue contends the record supports the ALJ's credibility assessment. | Not supported; credibility inadequately explained and lacking record support. |
| Did the ALJ properly address gaps in Shauger's treatment history? | Shauger asserts the ALJ failed to explore reasons for sparse treatment per SSR 96-7p. | Astrue maintains the gaps are consistent with a non-severe or fluctuating condition. | Gaps not adequately explained; requires remand to assess reasons for limited care. |
| Did the ALJ properly rely on non-examining Dr. Nafoosi without adequately developing the record? | Shauger contends Nafoosi’s superficial analysis and lack of examination cannot support credibility or RFC findings. | Astrue argues Nafoosi's opinion was given controlling weight where appropriate. | ALJ failed to develop the record and did not justify reliance on Nafoosi's opinion; remand required. |
| Did the ALJ adequately consider the headaches and their impact on daily activities and work? | Shauger asserts the ALJ ignored factors in SSR 96-7p (daily activities, timing, duration, treatment efforts). | Astrue claims the ALJ considered relevant evidence and reached a reasonable RFC. | Not adequately considered; requires remand for proper evaluation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734 (7th Cir.2011) (appearance of credibility standard and deference to ALJ)
- O'Connor-Spinner v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 614 (7th Cir.2010) (substantial evidence and credibility framework)
- Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155 (7th Cir.2010) (special deference to credibility findings)
- Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558 (7th Cir.2009) (regulatory factors for credibility; need for record support)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir.2012) (avoid boilerplate; credibility must be anchored to record)
- Parker v. Astrue, 597 F.3d 920 (7th Cir.2010) (credibility template and record support concerns)
- Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704 (7th Cir.2011) (need for substantiation of non-examining opinions)
- Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299 (7th Cir.2010) (reliance on non-examining doctor must be justified)
- Nelms v. Astrue, 553 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir.2009) (duty to develop a full and fair record)
- Allen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 561 F.3d 646 (6th Cir.2009) (credibility determinations regarding pain rest with ALJ)