Winsted v. Berryhill
915 F.3d 466
7th Cir.2019Background
- Claimant Ronnie Winsted applied for disability insurance and SSI alleging physical (degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, COPD, sleep apnea, carpal tunnel, cavus foot, obesity) and mental (major depressive disorder, panic disorder, PTSD, generalized anxiety) impairments; prior applications with an earlier alleged onset were denied.
- Treating records show variable objective findings: intermittent limited ROM and chronic cough; MRIs showed focal degenerative disc disease; pulmonary testing showed moderate obstructive disease in 2013 but mixed findings across visits.
- Mental-health providers assigned low GAF scores (45–51) and diagnosed major depression, panic disorder, and PTSD; treatment notes documented anxiety, panic attacks, episodes of being overwhelmed, and fluctuating mood/concentration.
- Treating physician (Dr. Gopala) and therapist (Nevill) completed RFC questionnaires finding severe limits on sitting/standing/walking, attention/concentration, and ability to tolerate stress; state examiners gave more moderate opinions.
- ALJ found multiple severe impairments, specifically noted "moderate" limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace, but adopted an RFC limiting Winsted to light work with restrictions (e.g., simple, routine, repetitive tasks; few workplace changes; no teamwork/public interaction) and relied on a vocational expert to find jobs available.
- The ALJ also asked the VE hypotheticals describing off-task time (20%) or two unscheduled absences/month; the VE said such persons could not sustain work, but the ALJ did not incorporate those results into the RFC. The district court affirmed; the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded limited to the concentration issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RFC and VE hypothetical adequately accounted for claimant's moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace | Winsted: RFC ("simple, routine, repetitive tasks") and VE hypothetical failed to capture documented moderate limitations in concentration/persistence/pace and stress-related limits | Agency: RFC restrictions (simple tasks, limited social interaction) implicitly accounted for concentration deficits | Court: Reversed — RFC/hypothetical did not adequately account for concentration/persistence/pace; remand required on that issue only |
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating physician's (Dr. Gopala) opinion | Winsted: Dr. Gopala's restrictions support more limiting RFC | Agency: ALJ permissibly discounted treating opinion as inconsistent with objective record and the doctor's own notes | Court: ALJ gave adequate reasons to discount Dr. Gopala (inconsistency with record) — no reversible error on this point |
| Whether ALJ properly discounted therapist Nevill's mental RFC | Winsted: Nevill's opinion shows marked limitations and absenteeism | Agency: Nevill is not an "acceptable medical source" and opinion relied heavily on claimant's subjective reports; inconsistent with record | Court: ALJ permissibly discounted Nevill's opinion for those reasons |
| Whether ALJ properly considered state-examiner opinions (Marlow, Siderys) | Winsted: ALJ gave them little attention and erred | Agency: ALJ discussed and relied on those opinions where appropriate; gave reasons for discounting aspects based on limited examination | Court: ALJ adequately considered and explained weight given to state examiners' opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809 (7th Cir.) ("simple, repetitive tasks" language alone often insufficient to capture deficiencies in concentration, persistence, and pace)
- Moreno v. Berryhill, 882 F.3d 722 (7th Cir.) (hypothetical to VE must incorporate concentration/persistence/pace limits when ALJ finds them)
- O'Connor-Spinner v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 614 (7th Cir.) (explaining insufficiency of boilerplate "simple tasks" limits to account for pace/concentration deficits)
- Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816 (7th Cir.) (need to account for stress-related limitations in hypothetical/RFC)
- Johansen v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 283 (7th Cir.) (same; addressing stress tolerance and work restrictions)
- Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408 (7th Cir.) (ALJ may discount treating opinions inconsistent with objective record)
- Loveless v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 502 (7th Cir.) (treating physician opinions may be discredited if inconsistent)
- Rice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363 (7th Cir.) (court applies common-sense reading to ALJ decision and favors medical opinions based on objective observations)