Stephens v. Berryhill
888 F.3d 323
7th Cir.2018Background
- Stephens (born 1957, ninth-grade education) applied for SSI claiming disability from multiple conditions including diabetes, chronic kidney disease, COPD/asthma, heart disease, obesity, back/knee pain, and sleep apnea; alleged onset ultimately set at March 31, 2010.
- Medical record shows long-standing obesity (BMI ~38–44), insulin-dependent diabetes, sleep apnea with CPAP noncompliance, urinary and fecal incontinence episodes with prostate surgery that improved symptoms, knee and spinal osteoarthritis, and intermittent chronic kidney disease; mixed findings on hand/upper-extremity function.
- First ALJ denied benefits (Oct. 2011); district court reversed and remanded. State Agency later found disability effective March 18, 2013, but did not address the period before that date.
- On remand a different ALJ held a second hearing (Sept. 2014) and found Stephens had several severe impairments but retained the RFC for sedentary work with a sit/stand option (~every 45 minutes), occasional postural activities, and no climbing ladders; ALJ concluded he could perform past work as security guard and taxi dispatcher.
- Appeals Council denied review; district court affirmed the ALJ; Stephens appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consideration of obesity | ALJ failed to account for obesity's cumulative effect and did not treat it as an independent limiting impairment | ALJ recognized obesity as severe, discussed BMI and aggravating effects, and included functional limits supported by record | Affirmed — ALJ adequately considered obesity and did not speculate beyond record evidence |
| Treating-physician/hypersomnolence evidence | ALJ erred by finding no medical opinion on excessive sleepiness and by discounting Dr. Jain's driving restriction | Defendant: Dr. Jain's driving advice is not a medical opinion about work-related functional limitations; ALJ considered sleep apnea/fatigue in RFC | Affirmed — driving restriction not a controlling medical opinion; ALJ addressed sleep issues in RFC and past work did not require driving |
| Combined impairments & RFC adequacy | ALJ failed to incorporate urination issues, balance, and hand problems into RFC and assess combined effects | ALJ found urinary issues resolved for 12-month requirement, addressed balance as "occasional," and found no ongoing medically determinable hand impairment or need for manipulation limits | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports ALJ's assessment of combined impairments and RFC |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155 (7th Cir. 2010) (review standard—ALJ decision must be supported by substantial evidence)
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2013) (definition of substantial evidence and review scope)
- Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2000) (treating-physician rule and controlling weight standard)
- Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247 (7th Cir. 2016) (obesity must be considered in combination with other impairments)
- Martinez v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2011) (obesity can magnify other impairments)
- Haynes v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2005) (ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence but must address unfavorable evidence)
- Indoranto v. Barnhart, 374 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2004) (ALJ must confront and explain rejection of evidence that does not support her conclusion)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (foundational definition of substantial evidence standard)