Webster v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:13-cv-02199

Background

Scott D. Webster applied for Disability Insurance Benefits on October 29, 2010, alleging onset March 5, 2010; denied administratively and after hearing; ALJ issued an unfavorable decision June 29, 2012; Appeals Council denied review.
ALJ found severe impairments: lumbar degenerative disc disease (post-laminectomy), diabetes, optic neuritis, obesity, and depression; concluded RFC for limited sedentary work (sit 6 hrs/8, stand/walk 2 hrs/8, at-will sit/stand, lift 10 lbs frequently/20 lbs occasionally, no ladders/heels/etc., avoid temperature extremes and hazards, unskilled simple tasks, avoid fast-paced work).
ALJ found plaintiff could not do past relevant work but could perform other jobs; therefore not disabled.
Plaintiff argued ALJ erred by (1) mishandling treating physicians’ opinions (Drs. Torres, Tanlin, Ahmad), (2) improperly evaluating need to change positions (sit/stand), (3) discounting plaintiff’s testimony/credibility, and (4) failing to assess fatigue per SSR 96-8p.
Magistrate Judge recommended granting plaintiff’s summary judgment, denying defendant’s, and remanding under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for failure to adequately address treating-physician functional capacity evaluations and related credibility/fatigue findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Treatment of treating physicians' opinions	ALJ ignored or failed to weigh detailed RFC forms from Drs. Torres and Tanlin showing extreme sitting/standing and lifting limits	ALJ gave little weight because treating records did not show inability to concentrate; Dr. Ahmad's conclusion is a non-medical legal opinion reserved to Commissioner	Remand: ALJ must consider the full physical capacity evaluations of Drs. Torres and Tanlin and give good reasons if rejecting them; no error in ignoring Dr. Ahmad's legal conclusion
Sit/stand requirement and RFC consistency	ALJ's RFC (6 hrs sit with at-will sit/stand, remain on task) is inconsistent and fails to explain ability to stay on task while changing positions; VE testimony improperly relied on	ALJ found sit/stand could be accommodated by scheduled breaks/lunch; no medical evidence that position changes disrupt on-task ability	No reversible error on sit/stand alone, but RFC may need revision after reassessing treating opinions; VE reliance not improper given ALJ's finding
Credibility of symptom testimony	ALJ improperly discounted plaintiff's statements without addressing treating doctors' findings supporting limitations	ALJ found plaintiff's reported limitations inconsistent with the record and RFC; credibility finding supported by record as interpreted	Remand ordered for credibility reassessment in light of any changed evaluation of treating physicians' RFC opinions
Fatigue and SSR 96‑8p RFC discussion	ALJ failed to evaluate fatigue impact (Dr. Torres found fatigue disabling from sleep apnea) per SSR 96-8p requirement to discuss symptom-related functional limits	ALJ concluded sleep apnea controlled with CPAP and caused minimal work limitation	Remand required so ALJ can revisit fatigue assessment consistent with treating physicians' opinions and SSR 96-8p guidance

Key Cases Cited

Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2011) (appeals court standard for substantial evidence review)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
Books v. Chater, 91 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 1996) (affirming denial when reasonable minds could differ)
Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2000) (ALJ must build a logical bridge from evidence to conclusion)
Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2011) (treating physician controlling weight standard)
Bates v. Colvin, 736 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2013) (treating opinion loses controlling weight when contradicted by well-supported evidence)
Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2001) (ALJ must confront and explain rejection of evidence that does not support her conclusion)