Terry Pierce v. Carolyn Colvin
739 F.3d 1046
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Pierce, a former waitress with back problems, sought disability insurance and SSI benefits and challenged the ALJ’s credibility ruling.
- Medical history includes 2006 MRI showing disc issues, chiropractic/physical therapy, and pain medications; chiropractor Duarte opined over 50% reduction in bending, standing, and stooping.
- Consultants in 2007 found no disabling pain: Ezike noted normal spinal ROM with mild pain but guarded gait; Vincent assessed RFC lifting 50 lb occasionally, 25 lb frequently, standing/walking six hours, sitting six hours.
- 2008 physical therapy showed mild lumbar tenderness, 60% left-side strength loss, and 50% reduction in left bending.
- At the 2009 hearing, Pierce described leg numbness, pain with daily work, and ongoing attempts to work (including a Subway job); VE testified about suitable light jobs for an older individual.
- ALJ denied benefits, concluding Pierce could perform light work with sit/stand option and occasional bending, and the Appeals Council denial followed; district court granted summary judgment for the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility standard application | Pierce argues ALJ misapplied credibility rules and relied on boilerplate without proper explanation. | Pierce argues the ALJ’s reasoning supported by evidence is adequate; no error in credibility analysis. | ALJ’s credibility analysis flawed; remand required for reevaluation. |
| Uninsured status and treatment history | Lack of insurance explains limited treatment, which should not be used to discount credibility. | Sparse treatment supported by record corroborates non-severity; insurer status irrelevant to credibility. | ALJ erred by relying on lack of objective evidence and uninsured status to discount pain. |
| Weight afforded to treating chiropractor Duarte | Duarte’s opinions should be weighed more heavily as supporting disability. | Chiropractor not an 'acceptable medical source'; opinions appropriately given limited weight. | ALJ properly weighed Duarte’s opinions but remand may require reconsideration in light of credibility findings. |
| Pre-second injury lifting assessment and RFC | Using Franklin’s 2005 lifting assessment to infer current disability is improper after the 2006 injury. | RFC based on the total medical evidence; pre-injury assessment can be informative. | Creditability and RFC require fresh evaluation on remand; current findings insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sims v. Barnhart, 442 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2006) (pain can be disabling despite no objective findings)
- Johnson v. Barnhart, 449 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2006) (credibility central where no objective support)
- Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2004) (lack of objective support relevant but not sole basis)
- Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2012) (avoid meaningless boilerplate in credibility findings)
- Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2009) (objective evidence is not the sole basis for credibility)
- Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2006) (lack of objective corroboration relevant to credibility)
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2013) (boilerplate credibility language deemed meaningless without explanation)