Voigt v. Colvin
781 F.3d 871
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Voigt applied for Social Security disability benefits (2009), alleging psychiatric disorders (depression/bipolar), chronic back/hip pain, and an anal fissure; ALJ denied benefits finding he could perform unskilled sedentary work.
- Nurse practitioner Debra Day treated Voigt eight times, diagnosed depression then bipolar disorder, assigned GAF scores rising from 50 to 65, and opined he would miss work >4 days/month and could not meet competitive work standards.
- Medical consultants (who did not examine Voigt) and an osteopath concluded he could do unskilled sedentary work; osteopath observed slow/painful gait and trochanteric bursitis.
- Voigt reported improvement on Cymbalta but intermittent deterioration related in part to substance use (alcohol, Vicodin, marijuana); Day attributed but did not primarily blame substance use.
- The ALJ discounted Day’s opinion (not an ‘‘acceptable medical source’’), discounted some symptoms for failure/refusal to pursue certain procedures, credited vocational expert testimony about 23,000 local jobs, and found Voigt not totally disabled.
- The district court upheld the denial; the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings, finding multiple legal errors in the ALJ’s analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight given to nurse practitioner (Day) opinion | Day's repeated exams and treatment notes support her opinion that Voigt cannot sustain full‑time work | ALJ: Day is not an "acceptable medical source," visits few, GAFs inconsistent, and extreme limitations implausible | Court: ALJ gave inadequate reasons; non‑physician evidence may show severity and must be considered under SSR 06‑3p/20 C.F.R. provisions; remand required |
| ALJ's medical conjecture (institutionalization) | Day's opinion does not imply institutionalization; medication kept Voigt out of hospitals | ALJ asserted that if Day were correct Voigt would need hospitalization/institutionalization | Court: ALJ improperly made medical judgment beyond his competence; conjecture unreliable to reject Day's opinion |
| Use of daily activities (computer research, gaming) to discredit limitations | Activities are not probative of ability to sustain an 8‑hr workday; context (pain, seating, breaks, accommodations) not explored | ALJ treated ability to game/research as inconsistent with disabling pain/mental limits | Court: ALJ erred by not probing the nature, context, and demands of those activities before finding inconsistency |
| Reliance on vocational expert's job numbers and DOT consistency | VE testimony unsupported: numbers unexplained and DOT does not supply job counts; some listed jobs (e.g., security guard) inconsistent with psychiatric impairments | ALJ credited VE and DOT consistency to find jobs available | Court: ALJ improperly accepted VE estimates without adequate foundation or exploration of job suitability given Voigt's mental limits; VE testimony insufficient as relied upon |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Colvin, 741 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2014) (missing work frequently precludes substantial gainful activity)
- Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2013) (treatment‑provider opinions and effect of medication considered in disability analysis)
- Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2011) (GAF scores vary and are of limited reliability)
- Browning v. Colvin, 766 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2014) (vocational experts' job‑number estimates require a reliable foundation)
- Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2014) (ALJ may err in discounting subjective symptoms and treatment reasons)
- Jones v. Shalala, 21 F.3d 191 (7th Cir. 1994) (a claimant may desire to work yet be incapable of sustained gainful employment)
The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings, requiring the SSA to reassess Day's opinion, probe activity/context inconsistencies, and provide a supported basis for any vocational findings.