28 F.4th 792
7th Cir.2022Background
- Tiffany Poole (age 46, marginal education) has degenerative lumbar disc disease causing severe lower-back and right-leg pain after ~15 minutes of sitting or standing; also has learning disability, anxiety, and depression.
- She applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in May 2016; administrative denial, hearing before an ALJ in Jan. 2019, Appeals Council declined review, district court affirmed.
- ALJ found Poole had severe impairments, did not meet a listing, and assigned a sedentary residual functional capacity (RFC).
- Despite labeling the RFC "sedentary," the ALJ also imposed a sit/stand-at-15-minute intervals limitation that effectively required Poole to stand about four hours and sit about four hours in an 8-hour day.
- A vocational expert (VE), using the DOT and her experience, testified there were jobs compatible with the RFC; the ALJ relied on that to deny benefits.
- Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded because the ALJ’s sedentary finding conflicts with the four-hour standing requirement, rendering the decision internally inconsistent and not adequately explained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ’s RFC is internally inconsistent because she found Poole limited to sedentary work but required sit/stand every 15 minutes (totaling ~4 hours standing). | Poole: sedentary limits allow ≤2 hours standing/walking; 4 hours standing contradicts sedentary RFC. | Commissioner: error is harmless; court should read the RFC as light work with a sit/stand limitation or otherwise salvage the decision. | Court: Reversed and remanded — the ALJ’s findings are irreconcilable and the agency failed to articulate a clear, reviewable rationale (Chenery). |
| Whether the VE testimony and DOT support the ALJ’s step-five finding. | Poole: VE testimony conflicted with the DOT and did not properly address the sit/stand inconsistency. | Commissioner: VE reconciled her testimony with the DOT and identified sufficient jobs. | Court: Did not reach merits of this argument because remand was required on the primary RFC inconsistency. |
Key Cases Cited
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1943) (agency must clearly state and support reasons for its action; courts confined to the agency’s stated grounds)
- Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (when ALJ finds claimant limited to an exertional level, that level is the claimant’s maximum)
- Stephens v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 323 (7th Cir. 2018) (sedentary work generally limits standing/walking to no more than two hours in an eight-hour day)
- Chavez v. Berryhill, 895 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2018) (DOT is dated; VE testimony may be used but conflicts with DOT must be explained)
- Mandrell v. Kijakazi, 25 F.4th 514 (7th Cir. 2022) (RFC must identify the most that a claimant can do on a sustained basis)
- Steele v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2002) (courts must confine review to reasons provided by the ALJ; cannot accept post-hoc rationalizations)