Spiva v. Astrue
628 F.3d 346
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Seventh Circuit reviews ALJ denial of Social Security disability benefits for Spiva.
- ALJ listed overlapping impairments (mood disorder, schizophrenia, dysthymia, psychosis, depression, substance issues, ADD) with unclear terminology.
- ALJ concluded not totally disabled and relied on supposed prior Walmart job without defining it or analyzing other feasible work.
- Record shows extensive psychiatric treatment, lack of consistent medication adherence, and evidence of impairment not adequately accounted for.
- Spiva lacked counsel at hearing; question remains whether the ALJ properly evaluated credibility, medical evidence, and functional capacity.
- Court remands to SSA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial complied with Chenery doctrine | Spiva’s record required full consideration of evidence. | Defense disputes remand need; record supports denial. | Remand warranted for proper analysis. |
| Whether ALJ properly assessed credibility and malingering | Credibility/participation evidence undermines denial. | Evidence was sufficient to deny. | Remand to reevaluate credibility. |
| Whether ALJ failed to analyze past and potential other work | ALJ did not define the Walmart job or consider other jobs. | Past work analysis was adequate. | Remand to consider multiple jobs and vocational factors. |
| Whether treatment history and medication issues were properly considered | Non-adherence due to cost/side effects affects credibility. | Medical evidence supports denial despite non-adherence. | Remand for comprehensive treatment-related analysis. |
| Whether proper procedural approach and representation affected outcome | Unrepresented claimant impeded full development of record. | Record development was sufficient. | Remand to ensure complete development and due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. Astrue, 597 F.3d 920 (7th Cir. 2010) (discourages boilerplate credibility findings; highlights Chenery concerns)
- Chenery Corp. v. Humphrey, 318 U.S. 80 (S. Ct. 1943) (doctrine requiring reasoned agency decision; improper reliance on record)
- Gentle v. Barnhart, 430 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2005) (activities of daily living not equal to work capacity)
- Nelms v. Astrue, 553 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2009) (proper questioning to develop record when pro se/mentally impaired)
- Borovsky v. Holder, 612 F.3d 917 (7th Cir. 2010) (harmless error doctrine versus Chenery)