Smith v. Astrue
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66441
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Claimant Florence Smith requested DIB under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and the SSA denied initially and on reconsideration; a hearing before an ALJ followed.
- ALJ Janice Bruning found Smith not disabled on September 16, 2009, determining she could perform light work with sit/stand options and other baselines.
- Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision in March 2010.
- Smith, proceeding pro se at the hearing, was informed by the ALJ of representation options and free counsel; later the court found waiver valid.
- Medical evidence included a non-severe treatment history for carpal tunnel syndrome and back pain, and an unrevealing state examination by Dr. Shah; an RFC assessment by Dr. Pilapil supported light work with limitations.
- The ALJ’s residual functional capacity allowed light work with no ropes/ladders/scaffolds, occasional ramps/stairs and postural limits, avoid cold exposure, and sit/stand at will; the ALJ concluded there are a significant number of jobs Smith can perform.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of waiver of representation | Claimant contends waiver was invalid. | Commissioner argues waiver was valid. | Waiver valid; written notices satisfied Thompson standard. |
| ALJ's duty to develop a full and fair record | ALJ failed to probe limitations, obtain treating-physician opinion, and properly examine VE. | Record was sufficient; ALJ adequately questioned claimant and VE. | ALJ adequately developed record; no reversible error. |
| RFC and medical-evidence discussion | RFC failed to incorporate hand and leg-elevation limitations and aggregate impairments. | Evidence supports RFC; non-severe impairments did not create functional limits. | RFC properly supported by medical evidence; aggregate impairments considered within reason. |
| Credibility determination | ALJ's credibility finding was conclusory and insufficiently explained. | ALJ provided reasons tying testimony to medical evidence; credibility not patently wrong. | Credibility determination adequate and not patently wrong. |
Key Cases Cited
- Binion v. Shalala, 13 F.3d 243 (7th Cir. 1994) (waiver of right to counsel requires proper informing and fee structure)
- Thompson v. Sullivan, 933 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1991) (writing must clearly inform about 25% fee limit for counsel)
- Lamay v. Comm’r of Social Sec., 562 F.3d 503 (2d Cir. 2009) (statutory notice may replace stricter pre-1991 standard)
- Roberts v. Comm’r of the Social Sec. Admin., 644 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2011) (statutory notice requirement abrogates older waiver standard)
- Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (S. Ct. 2000) (summary-judgment standard and deferential review of SSA findings)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (S. Ct. 1971) (substantial evidence standard for administrative findings)
- Berger v. Astrue, 516 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2008) (RFC must be supported by relevant evidence and explain credibility)
- Haynes v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2005) (grids framework; VE testimony may be required for sit/stand limitations)
- McKinnie v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2004) (VE foundations must be data-supported when relying on experience)
- Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000) (final standard of review for SSA determinations)