242 F. Supp. 3d 773
S.D. Ind.2017Background
- Plaintiff Everett Stiles applied for SSI (alleged onset Nov. 7, 2011); ALJ denied benefits; case reviewed by magistrate judge on consent.
- ALJ found Stiles had multiple severe impairments (including COPD, degenerative disc disease, sleep apnea, depression, PTSD, borderline intellectual functioning, substance abuse) but did not meet a Listing.
- RFC: sedentary work with limits — occasional bilateral fingering; simple/repetitive tasks; occasional contact with public/co-workers/supervisors; routine, low-change work; no fast-paced/assembly work.
- ALJ found Stiles unable to perform past work but, relying on a vocational expert (VE), concluded other jobs exist nationally and denied benefits.
- Stiles challenged (1) VE testimony as inconsistent with DOT/SCO/ONET and inaccurate codes, and (2) the ALJ’s credibility findings (work history, situational stressors, substance use, conservative treatment, daily activities, smoking).
- Court (magistrate judge) held Stiles forfeited most VE/DOT objections (raised after hearing) under Donahue, but found multiple legal errors in the ALJ’s credibility analysis requiring remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| VE testimony inconsistent with DOT/SCO/ONET and contained erroneous DOT codes | VE jobs (surveillance monitor, coupon counter/scanner, general labor) conflict with DOT/SCO/ONET (speaking, contact frequency, SVP, exertional/fine-finger requirements) and codes are wrong | Forfeiture: Stiles failed to raise these conflicts at hearing, so Donahue bars raising them now | Forfeited: court applied Donahue and held objections forfeited (but noted apparent merit and suggested Commissioner may revisit on remand) |
| Credibility — ALJ relied on family/financial grief stressors to discount mental symptoms | Stressors do not negate severity; ALJ improperly substituted lay judgment for medical opinion; records show persistent mental-health treatment before/after losses | ALJ relied on medical records showing stressors contributed/exacerbated symptoms | Error: ALJ improperly used situational-stressor reasoning to discredit witness statements; remand required to reassess credibility without using that rationale to undermine symptom reports |
| Credibility — COPD and conservative treatment/medical opinions | Nighttime oxygen, physicians’ descriptions, imaging, and consultative findings support significant functional limitation; ALJ improperly concluded lack of aggressive treatment undermines claimed severity | ALJ relied on conservative/routine treatment and absence of treating/examining opinion declaring greater limits | Error (partial): ALJ may consider lack of medical opinion but erred by concluding credibility undermined because treatment was not aggressive without identifying what aggressive care would be expected; remand to reassess COPD-related credibility and require expert articulation if aggressive treatment would be expected |
| Credibility — continued smoking and daily activities | Failure to quit is not a valid basis to discredit due to addiction; ALJ failed to probe frequency/quality of daily activities before using them against Stiles | Smoking and activities support disbelief; any forfeited VE errors make credibility findings important | Error: ALJ’s reliance on continued smoking was legally flawed under Shramek (failed to account for addiction and quit attempts) and use of daily activities lacked articulated comparison; remand required to re-evaluate these credibility findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500 (7th Cir.) (standards for substantial-evidence review)
- Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467 (7th Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard and review limits)
- Wood v. Thompson, 246 F.3d 1026 (7th Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (substantial-evidence standard in Social Security context)
- Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751 (7th Cir.) (courts cannot reweigh evidence; scope of review)
- Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995 (7th Cir.) (burden shifting and review limits)
- Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155 (7th Cir.) (de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Donahue v. Barnhart, 279 F.3d 441 (7th Cir.) (forfeiture of DOT inconsistencies not raised at hearing)
- Shramek v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 809 (7th Cir.) (addictive nature of smoking limits inference that failure to quit undermines credibility)
- McCleskey v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 351 (7th Cir.) (discretion to reopen administrative record)