Winsted v. Berryhill
923 F.3d 472
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- Ronnie Winsted applied for Social Security disability benefits alleging physical (degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, COPD, carpal tunnel, cavus foot, sleep apnea, obesity) and mental impairments (major depressive disorder, panic disorder, PTSD, anxiety).
- Medical records included MRIs showing focal degenerative disc disease, variable pulmonary testing, treating-physician notes showing intermittent full range of motion, and mental-health treatment with low GAF scores and reports of being tense, anxious, easily overwhelmed, and distractible.
- Treating providers (Dr. Gopala and therapist Jessica Nevill) completed RFC questionnaires finding substantial limitations in physical endurance, attention/concentration, and marked limitations in social/work interactions; state examiners (Drs. Marlow and Siderys) found milder impairments.
- An ALJ found Winsted had several severe impairments, acknowledged moderate difficulties in social functioning and in concentration, persistence, and pace, but assigned an RFC limiting him to light work with restrictions (e.g., 4 hours standing/walking, simple/routine/repetitive tasks, few workplace changes, no teamwork or public contact).
- The ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational expert tracked that RFC and the VE identified transferable sedentary/light assembly jobs; VE testimony that a worker off-task 20% of the day or with two unscheduled absences/month could not sustain work was elicited but not adopted by the ALJ.
- The district court upheld the denial; the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether the RFC/hypothetical adequately accounted for Winsted’s concentration/persistence/pace deficits and whether the ALJ properly weighed medical opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RFC and VE hypothetical accounted for claimant's moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace | Winsted: RFC and hypothetical were inadequate because "simple, routine, repetitive tasks" alone do not capture documented moderate deficits in concentration/persistence/pace | SSA: RFC limits (minimal social interaction, simple tasks) sufficiently accommodated mental limitations | Court: ALJ failed to incorporate concentration/persistence/pace limits into the controlling hypothetical/RFC; remand required to address this issue |
| Whether ALJ erred in rejecting treating physician Dr. Gopala's physical RFC opinion | Winsted: ALJ improperly discounted treating opinion that indicated severe functional limits | SSA: ALJ permissibly discounted it as inconsistent with objective findings and treating notes showing normal ranges and objective exam findings | Court: ALJ provided adequate reasons to discount the treating opinion based on record inconsistency; no reversible error on this point |
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted therapist Nevill's mental RFC | Winsted: ALJ should have credited Nevill's marked limitations and absenteeism findings | SSA: Nevill is not an "acceptable medical source" and her conclusions relied on subjective reports; ALJ properly gave them little weight | Court: ALJ permissibly discounted Nevill's opinion for those reasons; not reversible error |
| Whether ALJ adequately considered state-examiner opinions | Winsted: ALJ undervalued and cursorily discussed state examiners' reports | SSA: ALJ discussed and reasonably weighed those opinions as based on single exams and claimant's subjective reports | Court: ALJ's treatment of state-examiner opinions was supported by record and adequately explained |
Key Cases Cited
- Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2015) (simple, repetitive-task language alone may not capture deficiencies in concentration, persistence, and pace)
- Moreno v. Berryhill, 882 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2018) (hypothetical to VE must account for documented limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace)
- O'Connor-Spinner v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2010) (ALJ must adequately translate moderate C/P/P deficits into RFC/hypothetical; generic limiting language may be insufficient)
- Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2007) (where limitations are stress-related, hypothetical should reflect level of stress claimant can handle)
- Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463 (U.S. 2012) (waiver requires knowing and intelligent relinquishment of a claim)
- Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. 2008) (ALJ must give reasons for weight accorded medical opinions and may discount opinions inconsistent with the record)