Case Information
*1 Before F LAUM E ASTERBROOK , K IRSCH , Circuit Judges . K IRSCH Circuit Judge
. Margaret Gro tt s applied Social Security bene fi ts basis various impairments, including depression low func tional capacity. An administrative law judge concluded Gro tt s disabled, because she could still perform light some restrictions because signi fi cant number jobs fi tt ing description existed national economy. *2 district court agreed. Gro tt s now appeals on theory that its evaluation Gro tt s’s subjective com plaints her symptoms, its evaluation medical opinion evidence, its residual functional capacity termination. But evidence weighing RFC deter mination, patently err evaluation Gro tt s’s complaints. We a ffi rm.
I
A On August 26, 2009, Margaret Grotts applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. She has alleged closed period from January December Considering theories appeal, first look her testimony before turning pro fessionals who treated her.
In her application for benefits, Grotts stated she had trouble memory, concentration, managing stress. She also reported she could perform limited activi ties such taking son from school, performing household chores, preparing meals, bathing. At various evidentiary hearings, testified she fulltime caretaker one children d December October she had job caring child disabili ties. Citing bipolar disorder, described having one three “bad days” week losing jobs often being late absent. Although she had taken certified nursing assistance (CNA) classes twice, she passed final exam. *3 testified that she had re entered force in cleaning service industry in 2015.
For years, Gro tt s saw Janet Merrell, Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN), who treated her with various med ‐ ications. These were often modi fi ed alleviate side e ff ects or increase e ff ectiveness. Although Gro tt s reported low energy, forgetfulness, di ffi culty sleeping, stress, and anxiety, Merrell noted that Gro tt s’s cognition was good her functioning fair. Another nurse, Dorothy Behrns, fi lled out a form scribing Gro tt s’s depression well controlled medi cation. Gro tt s also received individual therapy from Tina O tt o, a professional counselor, whom Gro tt s shared that she had a job interview lined up in 2009. O tt o’s *4 persistence, or pace and found no repeated episodes of ‐ compensation of extended duration. Dr. Cremerius rated Gro tt s signi fi cantly limited out of areas of men tal functioning and moderately limited the remaining seven, which included capacity understand, remember, and carry out detailed instructions, interact appropriately the public, accept instructions criticism super visors, respond appropriately changes the work se tt ing, work peers without distracting them being dis tracted by them. Another agency psychologist, Phyllis Brister, Ph.D., adopted Dr. Cremerius’s fi ndings men tal residual functional capacity evaluation Gro tt s May
B
There’s no doubt has been through the wringer. Her case has been remanded ALJs four times, first by agency’s Appeals Council then three times by district court. But five unfavorable decisions rendered ALJs throughout this claim’s long procedural history, only last subject this appeal. After fifth final hear ing, denied benefits. Examining complaints laid out above, credit Grotts’s symptoms, gave great weight Drs. Cremerius Brister, discounted Walker. Fi nally, residual functional ca pacity (RFC) perform light significant number jobs nationa l economy. district court affirmed final decision Commissioner denying ap plication benefits. This appeal followed. *5 21 1572 5
II
We review district court judgments affirming Com missioner’s decision novo. Gedatus v. Saul , 994 F.3d 893, 900 (7th Cir. 2021). We will affirm decisions to deny benefits when follows applicable law supports conclusions substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. 405(g); Biestek v. Berryhill , 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 (2019). “Substantial ev idence is high threshold.” Karr v. Saul , F.3d 508, 511 (7th Cir. 2021). It means nothing more than “such relevant ev idence reasonable mind might accept as adequate sup port conclusion.” Biestek , S. Ct. at (internal citations omitted).
A erred, argues, by giving great weight
opinions state agency psychologists giving greatest weight opinions treating nurse ther apists. We review decision give more weight psychologists’ opinions than other treating professionals’ evidence. See Ketelboe ter v. Astrue , F.3d (7th Cir. 2008). characterizes Janet Tina Mikaella Walker “treating sources” whose were entitled given greatest weight analyzed via mul tifactor framework delineated 404.1527(c)(2). certainly correct ALJs should expressly analyze treating physicians’ using 404.1527(c)(2) minimally articulate their when giving treat ing physician’s less than controlli ng weight. Karr 512; Elder Astrue But argument *6 ‐ 1572 treatment Walker presumes three professionals are “treating sources” under regula tions. They are not. Not all licensed medical professionals provide claimant are considered “treating sources” under regulation. Rather, treating sources under regulation must be “acceptable medical sources,” C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), defined § 404.1502(a). Treating therapists are not listed. Id. ; see also Winsted v. Berryhill 472, (7th Cir. And licensed advanced practice registered nurses are considered acceptable medical sources “only respect claims filed … on or after March 27, 2017.” § 404.1502(a)(7). For claims filed between April 2, June 12, 2011, acceptable medical sources were limited licensed physicians, psychologists, optome trists, podiatrists, qualified speech language pathologists. Id . § 404.1513(a) (current version id . § 404.1502(a)). applied for DIB SSI on August 2009, so Mer
rell (APRN), Otto (therapist), Walker (therapist) are not acceptable medical sources purposes claim. And such, three cannot produce opinions considered treating sources under regulations. Id. §§ 404.1527(a)(1) (2), 404.1502. Instead, their are governed lesser requirements § 404.1527(f). For acceptable sources, application 404.1527(c) “depends particular facts” “not every factor ... will apply every case.” Id. 404.1527(f)(1). An must minimally articulate reasons discounting no n treating sources’ but need consider explicitly factor listed under 404.1527(c). Compare Sosh Saul F. App’x 2020) (finding no error where “did explicitly consider *7 ‐ factor listed under § 404.1527(c)” when evaluating a treatment provider who qualify as an acceptable med ‐ ical source) with Karr (faulting an ALJ for “marching through referenced in 404.1527(c)” when evaluating a treating physician who qualified an ac ‐ ceptable source). Rather, an only needs “ex ‐ plain weight given these sources or oth ‐ erwise ensure that discussion evidence in deter mination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent re viewer follow adjudicator’s reasoning.” 404.1527(f)(2). It enough for summarize find ings non treating source’s opinion note that those findings are corroborated objective evidence in rec ord. Pierce Colvin
Here, summarized Walker, finding Grotts had marked extreme lim itations in daily vocational functioning. And ex plained why it those inconsistent with various record: Grotts had never been psychiatrically hospitalized; Behrns’s February described depression well controlled; was looking job April completed CNA class, able main tain household care child behavioral problems another child disabilities; Otto’s therapy *8 ‐ ALJ’s reasoning. See C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2). That the ALJ did march through each § 404.1527(c) factor in evaluating non treating sources non issue because “not fac tor weighing opinion evidence” applied in this case. See id. § 404.1527(f)(1). The ALJ did err treatment opinions Walker. also argues that giving great
weight state agency reviewing psychologists. The indeed give great weight both medical assessments, determination we affirm if supported substantial evidence. See Karr Preliminarily, we note regu lations consider state agency psychologists such Dr. Cremerius Dr. Brister “highly qualified experts Social Security evaluation.” 404.1513a(b)(1). As with all medical opinions, must examine 404.1527(c) minimally articulate crediting non treating opinions.
Here, supports giving great weight reports Drs. Cremerius Brister. Dr. Cremerius’s consistent with other evi dence social explained Drs. Cremerius Brister saw much record, program knowledge, specialize mental impairments, their own explanation. In so doing, used framework 404.1527(c) explain why it gave greater weight Dr. Cremerius Dr. Bris ter than other opinions.
To extent takes issue Dr. Cremerius’s supposed deficient record his opinion, we note again do review *9 9 independently but rather review ALJ’s weighing those evidence, we only overturn weighing if no reasonable mind could accept con ‐ clusion. wants us to weigh Dr. Cremerius’s ourselves, but this would be no less than substituting our judgment ALJ’s, an impermissible step. Zoch v. Saul , F.3d (7th Cir. 2020).
B
We turn next Grotts’s contention failed to adequately consider symptoms. Subjective statements by claimants as pain other symptoms are not alone conclusive evidence disabil ‐ ity must supported by other objective evidence. U.S.C. 423(d)(5)(A). regulations instruct ALJs con sider number factors, including: (1) relevant evi dence, including intensity limiting effects symptoms, §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); (2) ef ficacy, id. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) (v), 416.929(c)(3)(iv) (v); (3) re turn gainful activity, id. §§ 404.1571, 416.471; (4) dur ing period, id. ; (5) activities, id. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i); (6) statements incon sistent record, id. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4). An need not discuss every detail record it relates every factor. Gedatus at 903. Summaries evidence, while definitionally “partial selective,” are ap propriate. Id. Still, although ALJs do need ad dress piece evidence record, an may ignore an entire line contrary ruling. Reinaas Saul As long gives specific reasons record, will *10 10 21 1572 overturn a credibility determination unless it patently wrong. Deborah M. v. Saul , F.3d 785, (7th Cir. 2021).
The ALJ, pursuant to § 404.1529(c)(2), considered ob jective during alleged disability period. The noted above findings concerning Grotts’s moder ate limitations in functioning and considered Grotts’s treat ments and medications and their efficacy accordance with § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv v). It appropriate for take into account Grotts’s return full time employment her continued use same medications therapy. Under 404.1571, ALJs may consider a return gainful ac tivity after close period when claimant has consistency circumstances. See Eichstadt v. Astrue , F.3d (7th Cir. Concerning Grotts’s during period, observed took care child disabilities searched for job. And ALJ, eval uating Grotts’s daily activities, 404.1529(c)(3)(i), listed Grotts’s completed CNA course, care her two children, capability keep up functions like house work, cooking, driving, attending appointments. After acknowledging Grotts’s reported difficulties doing these tasks, pointed certain inconsistencies between subjective record. See 404.1529(c)(4); Simila Astrue 2009) (discounting claimant’s own statements symptoms after looking objective facts claimant’s life activi ties contradicted claimant’s claims subjective pain). reasons supporting conclusions these are types “specific reasons” have sufficient discount reports symptoms. Gedatus (affirming credibility determination where ex plained considered recited relevant *11 medical history, the claimant’s testimony, and the physicians’ opinions).
Grotts contends the ALJ assessment of the intensity, persistence, limiting effects her symptoms. Nowhere, however, does Grotts point to reversible error by the ALJ. Rather, Grotts challenges the ALJ’s summaries Grotts’s activities, functioning, history. And Grotts makes much her contention the did ad dress matters having to do Grotts’s nurse visits. But the did need to address fact the record, none matters listed by show the ALJ’s conclu sions on Grotts’s subjective complaints to patently wrong. Nor fail follow remand directives district court Appeals Council, seems sug gest. Neither made credibility findings Grotts’s subjec tive binding ALJ. Instead, both directed further evaluate Grotts’s allegations provide rationales support conclusions, which did.
When criticizes ALJ’s analysis her func tioning, good bad days, pain, she is, above, inviting us reweigh evidence. But “[w]hen assessing ALJ’s credibility determination, we do … undertake novo review was presented ALJ. Instead, we merely examine whether ALJ’s determi nation reasoned supported.” Elder at 413. Finding determination reasoned evidence, again decline offer substi tute our judgment ALJ’s. Zoch
C last argues making its RFC
termination. She incorporates argu ments, alleging ALJ’s conclusion cherry picked evidence, odds record, was supported evidence, relied faulty opinions. For reasons stated Section B, err. It did ignore entire line evidence, pointed objective evi dence supporting conclusion, rightly weighed two reviewing psychologists. Listing environment, supported all objective evidence record. Reynolds Kijakazi F.4th Substantial RFC determination.
A FFIRMED notes show that she found Gro tt s have low moderate im pairment in function. O tt o, together fi lled out a mental functional capacity report Gro tt s which they rec orded that Gro tt s had bipolar anxiety disorders, marked daily social activities, extreme limita tions concentration, persistence, pace, beginning 2006. They estimated Gro tt s would consequently ab sent from job more than three times month reported Gro tt s had one two episodes decompensation 2009–10. Merrell Mikaella Walker, licensed clinical pro fessional counselor, later fi lled out another report Gro tt s, echoing conclusions fi rst adding Gro tt s four more episodes decompensation May May Gro tt s’s records re reviewed number psychologists. Michael Cremerius, Ph.D., Gro tt s’s impairments mildly restricted activities, so cial functioning, ability maintain concentration,
notes indicated only moderate impairment functioning; Merrell indicated faced only moderate functioning. The these non treating sources cer tainly satisfies less stringent requirements 404.1527(f). sufficiently articulated such way claimant subsequent reviewer could follow