Willie Curvin v. Carolyn Colvin, 778 F.3d 645

Background

Plaintiff Willie Mae Curvin applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (Title II) in March 2010, alleging disability from January 2009 due to glaucoma, overactive thyroid, hypertension, sleep problems, and knee pain.
The ALJ held a hearing (Aug. 2011) and denied benefits (Oct. 2011) after applying the five-step sequential evaluation.
At step 2 the ALJ found only right-eye glaucoma severe; other impairments were deemed nonsevere.
At step 3 the ALJ concluded Curvin’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment.
The ALJ assigned an RFC for a full range of work at all exertional levels except no right peripheral vision, found Curvin could perform her past work as a personal care worker, and thus was not disabled.
The district court vacated and remanded, concluding the ALJ erred by not making a credibility/symptom finding at step 2 (per SSR 96‑7p and 96‑3p) and by failing to explain a "missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding" at step 3; the Commissioner appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ had to make a credibility/symptom finding at step 2	Curvin: SSR 96‑7p/96‑3p required credibility/symptom evaluation at step 2 before finding other impairments nonsevere	Commissioner: Step 2 is a low threshold; once one severe impairment exists, ALJ need not assess credibility at step 2 if objective evidence establishes the severe impairment	Held: No error — ALJ need not make credibility findings at step 2 when objective evidence establishes at least one severe impairment; SSRs do not always require step‑2 credibility assessment.
Whether ALJ erred at step 3 by not explaining which impairments/listings were considered or by failing to state a missing/deficient objective finding before discounting symptoms	Curvin: ALJ should have detailed which listings were considered and explicitly found any missing/deficient signs/labs per 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(d)(3) before rejecting symptom allegations	Commissioner: ALJ’s discussion of impairments, objective evidence, and symptoms in the RFC section supplies the necessary analysis; regulation does not require an explicit “missing/deficient” finding	Held: No reversible error — ALJ’s combined step‑3 and RFC discussion built an adequate logical bridge; regulation does not mandate an explicit missing‑evidence finding.
Adequacy of RFC and credibility determinations	Curvin: RFC and credibility findings insufficiently reasoned	Commissioner: ALJ addressed medical evidence, treating opinions, symptoms, and inconsistencies; gave specific reasons for credibility assessment	Held: No reversible error — credibility findings supported by record; RFC discussion adequate and similar to accepted precedent.
Whether any step‑2 error would be harmful	Curvin: Procedural omission at step 2 prejudiced outcome	Commissioner: Any step‑2 omission was harmless because ALJ considered symptoms and credibility in later RFC analysis	Held: Even if step‑2 error existed, it was harmless because ALJ addressed impairments and symptoms in RFC analysis and proceeded properly through remaining steps.

Key Cases Cited

McKinzey v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 884 (7th Cir.) (ALJ must build an accurate, logical bridge from evidence to conclusion)
Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586 (7th Cir.) (step‑2 is a threshold requirement; one severe impairment suffices to continue evaluation)
Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351 (7th Cir.) (standards for adequacy of RFC/credibility discussion)
Castile v. Astrue, 617 F.3d 923 (7th Cir.) (threshold nature of step‑2 severity determination)
Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306 (7th Cir.) (ALJ need not provide complete written evaluation of every piece of evidence)
Rice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363 (7th Cir.) (read the ALJ’s decision as a whole; avoid redundant repetition of analyses)
Scheck v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697 (7th Cir.) (ALJ’s duty to articulate reasons for conclusions)
Sims v. Barnhart, 442 F.3d 536 (7th Cir.) (credibility determinations are entitled to deference because reviewing court did not observe the witness)
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (U.S. Supreme Court) (discussing threshold medical severity requirement for disability benefits)