92 F.4th 671
7th Cir.2024Background
- Todd Hess applied for disabled adult child (DAC) benefits, alleging continuous disability from before age 22 (August 1999) through his application date (February 2016), claiming depression, panic disorder, and OCD among other impairments.
- Hess was awarded social security disability insurance (SSDI) and supplemental security income (SSI) based on a disability onset date of June 2009, but the Social Security Administration (SSA) denied his DAC benefits for lack of evidence of continuous disability from before age 22.
- ALJ twice concluded Hess was not disabled before June 2009, relying on gaps in medical treatment, physician notes reflecting improvement or adequate functioning, and Hess’s independent work during that period.
- The district court affirmed the ALJ, finding the decision was supported by substantial evidence and that all legal standards were followed.
- Hess appealed, challenging the ALJ’s treatment of the medical evidence (in particular, Dr. Orosz’s opinions) and the evaluation of his subjective symptom testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to Dr. Orosz’s findings of moderate cognitive limitations | ALJ failed to include them in RFC | RFC accounted for moderate limitations | ALJ’s RFC incorporated moderate limitations |
| Reliance on Dr. Orosz’s narrative statements | ALJ ignored relevant impairments | Statements were too vague | ALJ properly gave them little weight |
| Change in weight assigned to Dr. Orosz’s opinions | ALJ inconsistently weighed opinions | Weighting was consistent across decisions | No material change in weighting |
| Assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom evidence | ALJ improperly discounted testimony | Lack of corroboration for many years’ gaps | ALJ’s assessment was not patently wrong |
Key Cases Cited
- Jeske v. Saul, 955 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2020) (substantial evidence and logical bridge standard for ALJ review)
- Murphy v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard for overturning an ALJ’s subjective symptom assessment)
- Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995 (7th Cir. 2004) (ALJ need not proceed to all five steps if a decisive step is reached)
- Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001) (five-step process for determining disability)
- Reading v. Mathews, 542 F.2d 993 (7th Cir. 1976) (continuous disability requirement for adult child benefits)