Stage v. Colvin
812 F.3d 1121
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Debbie Stage (56) applied for SSI, DIB, and disabled widow’s benefits claiming disabling back and left-hip pain beginning October 2009; she is obese and has hypothyroidism.
- Extensive treatment records (2010–2012) show degenerative disc disease, annular tear, osteoarthritis of the left hip, antalgic gait, positive straight-leg and Patrick’s tests, and strong narcotic prescriptions.
- A March 2011 consultative exam noted limited lumbar motion and difficulty walking/standing; a non‑examining agency physician that month concluded Stage could perform light work (6 hrs sit/stand/walk).
- In late 2011–2012, orthopedic surgeon Dr. Oni examined Stage, ordered new MRIs, found worsening degeneration and severe left-hip arthritis, and recommended total left-hip replacement; Dr. Rivera (treating PCP) completed an RFC questionnaire saying Stage could sit/stand only five minutes at a time and less than two hours total per day.
- ALJ found Stage capable of light work, gave little weight to Dr. Rivera’s opinion, discounted Stage’s pain testimony (citing delay in treatment, refusal of injections/surgery, and daily-activity evidence), and denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted new exam/MRI and relied on non‑examining reviewer | Dr. Oni’s findings and MRI were new, significant, and could change the RFC; ALJ should have obtained a medical review | ALJ treated the new evidence as similar to existing records and relied on prior RFC | Court: ALJ erred; must obtain or rely on medical expert rather than interpret MRIs himself |
| Weight given to treating physician (Dr. Rivera) | Rivera’s RFC and diagnoses are well‑supported and show inability to work; ALJ gave them little weight without proper analysis | ALJ found Rivera’s questionnaire internally inconsistent with notes and overall record | Court: ALJ failed to give good reasons; treating opinion not properly assessed and deserved more consideration |
| Credibility of Stage’s pain testimony | Stage’s consistent reports, heavy narcotics, and functional limits support credibility | ALJ cited delayed care, refusal of injection/surgery, and limited household activities to discount credibility | Court: ALJ relied on improper grounds (drawn negative inference from forgoing surgery; overstated significance of daily activities) and failed to properly evaluate credibility |
| RFC—whether substantial evidence supports finding Stage can perform light work | Medical evidence (hip replacement need, limited sitting/standing, narcotics, obesity) contradicts ability to stand/walk 6 hrs/day | ALJ concluded light work RFC was supported by record and consultative non‑examining opinion | Court: RFC unsupported; ALJ should have obtained medical testimony and reassessed RFC on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Goins v. Colvin, 764 F.3d 677 (7th Cir. 2014) (ALJ must obtain medical scrutiny for new potentially decisive evidence)
- Moon v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2014) (ALJs must rely on medical experts, not their own medical judgments)
- Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2009) (ALJ must evaluate all limitations and not dismiss contrary evidence)
- Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2010) (treating physician rule: ALJ must give good reasons to reject treating opinion)
- Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556 (7th Cir. 2009) (same: weight of treating source opinions)
- Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2004) (prescription of strong pain medication supports claimant’s pain allegations)
- Barrett v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1065 (7th Cir. 2004) (ALJ must have evidentiary basis to find claimant can stand long periods)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing daily activities from ability to work full time)
- Gentle v. Barnhart, 430 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2005) (limited childcare/household help does not prove ability to work)
- Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2014) (improper to draw adverse inference from SSI claimant’s decision not to undergo surgery without inquiry)