Vargas v. Astrue, 1:10-cv-07554

Vargas sought disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) from the SSA, which denied benefits after an ALJ decision.
She has Brugada Syndrome with a defibrillator implanted in 2006 and revised leads in 2008.
She applied for benefits on August 27, 2008; psychiatric and internal medicine consults followed in October 2008.
A November 2009 hearing before ALJ Bassett included testimony from a medical expert and a vocational expert.
The ALJ denied benefits on November 27, 2009, finding a severe Brugada syndrome and a nonsevere mood disorder, and concluded the claimant could perform sedentary work; the district court affirmed in 2012.
Key medical records show no defibrillator shocks and no substantial mental-health treatment evidence at the relevant time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Vargas meets listing 4.05 for cardiac impairment.	Vargas argues the combination of Brugada syndrome and psychological effects should meet a listing.	Astrue contends the ALJ properly found no listing met, as treatment via defibrillator controls symptoms and no recurrent events with near syncope.	No listing met; ALJ's analysis sustained.
Whether the ALJ properly treated Vargas' mental impairment as severe or harmless error.	Plaintiff claims mood disorder is severe and was improperly deemed nonsevere.	Defendant asserts any error was harmless since the ALJ and psychologist reached compatible residual functional capacity conclusions.	Harmless error; ALJ's mental impairment not disabling.
Whether the ALJ properly evaluated Vargas' credibility.	Plaintiff asserts the credibility assessment is inconsistent with her activities and records.	ALJ considered range of activities, medical records, and expert opinions; credibility upheld.	Credibility finding not patently wrong; affirmed.
Whether the ALJ adequately considered the impact of defibrillator-related distress under 4.00F4a.	Plaintiff argues distress from shocks could affect functioning.	Record shows no shocks and thus 4.00F4a not applicable.	Not erroneous given evidence; no shocks occurred.

Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419 (7th Cir. 2010) (GAF score not controlling; mental functioning intact)
Keys v. Barnhart, 347 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2003) (harmless error analysis applied to SSA decisions)
Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2006) (review de novo with deference to factual findings)
Brace v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2005) (medication control of anxiety supports non-disability)
Christner v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2007) (nominal consideration of claims presented at hearing)