Case Information
*1
Before E ASTERBROOK , K ANNE , S T . E VE , Circuit Judges . P ER C URIAM . Michael seeks Social Security disa bility benefits, asserting became disabled shoulder January undergoing right surgery. Relying reports non examining state retained doctors over treating physician’s opinion, administrative law judge found subjective de scriptions his and functional limitations not credible and determined he disabled he still perform light work restrictions. dis trict court upheld determination. But substantial evi dence does decision discount treating physician’s opinion, and adequately evaluate complaints. We therefore vacate judgment and remand for further proceedings.
I. B ACKGROUND Reinaas, now in mid fifties, lives on a small farm in ru ral Wisconsin has a history neck fusion surgeries cervicogenic headaches (pain perceived in head comes from source in neck). Until he worked a machine operator in factory, which entailed heavy lifting. injured spine tore right rotator cuff job, stopped working while underwent neck fusion surgeries—one other in 2011—for spinal injury. granted benefits closed period ended July 2012. planned return second neck fusion surgery, continued suffer severe head aches originating neck (which treated hydroco done), pain, decreased range motion shoulder. July neurologist diagnosed cervicogenic headaches, family doctor made fur ther diagnoses “long term nuchal headaches” (headaches originating nape neck) “[p]ermanent syndrome post cervical fusion.” Donald Bodeau, occupational physician from
local branch Mayo Clinic assisting Reinaas a worker’s compensation application, opined Reinaas could return to his job at factory and recommended he retrained for lighter work. After determining Reinaas was risk for “accelerated degenerative changes disk levels adjacent to fused segments” in neck, he sug gested surgical intervention address headaches and shoulder pain from torn rotator cuff.
On January Reinaas had right shoulder surgery. His surgeon, Andrew Israel, explained recovery could take year and he could predict whether surgery would completely restore functionality arm. While recurrence pain was risk, he said relief was possible outcome.
After surgery, attended twice weekly physical therapy from February June took naproxen Vi codin for pain. Mark Vrieze, therapist, documented steady gains in strength range motion, gradually returned pre ac tivities: March, he shoveled snow driveway; in April, he moved cords firewood; May, he briefly used chainsaw; June, he used garden tiller. he fluctuating levels soreness neck worsened when active, needed Vicodin sleep.
Four months surgery, reported Is rael “better preoperatively” but ongoing soreness shoulder. Israel “hope[d]” symptoms would improve told him do anything surgically. ‐ then applied for disability benefits, asserting he became disabled again January after surgery. When his physical therapy ended few weeks later, Vrieze reported he had made significant progress daily living activ ‐ ities. Though Reinaas required rest periods and performed ‐ consistently fluctuating symptoms, he tolerate “fairly heavy work” at own pace. persisted flared when was active, needed anti ‐ inflammatories medication.
A few days after therapy ended June opined Reinaas at “10% disability shoulder” suggested permanently dis ‐ abled from “a number related injuries.” concluded from “moderate pain, weakness, loss motion loss endurance” after examination. Based symptoms, prescribed permanent work restrictions, limiting working no more than “four hours per day five days per week” lifting pounds. additional re ‐ strictions, said, complications other surger ‐ ies.
Months later, agency denied application for benefits when Jose Ruiz, state retained physi cian, reviewed medical records concluded ac counts symptoms fully credible. His applica tion denied again reconsideration, Anne Pros peri, another non examining state retained physician, re viewed medical records opined resid ual functional capacity enabled sit or stand nor mal breaks most normal workday. requested hearing. several months before hearing, Reinaas followed Bodeau, and Bodeau opined that Reinaas had “deteriorated significantly,” suffered from cervi cogenic headaches and problems surgeries, and “highly unlikely successfully regain employment any demand level.”
Reinaas had severe headaches least twice weekly, and an examination revealed “significant posterior muscle spasm[s] along cervical paraspinals and bilateral trape zius areas,” “objective signs persistent nerve damage,” loss cervical motion.
Based observations, Bodeau filled out Treat ing Source Inquiry form, indicating had spinal disorders nerve root compression presump tively disabling, suffered or severe migraines per month despite prescribed treatment. would be reliable worker, Bodeau wrote, neck shoulder would cause him absent approxi mately days per month.
On workers’ compensation form, checked boxes stating no longer condition worsened.
At hearing before ALJ, testified migraines, shoulder pain, difficulties daily living since made unable work. He described head movements limited “generally just nipple nipple” explained took medication almost daily. severe migraines, each lasting between half hour three days, days month.
Because wife worked off farm “stuff has get done,” Reinaas tried work through pain when needed shop, mow lawn, chop wood a light chain ‐ saw, take care son (a first grader), feed farm animals. activities caused fatigue, needed frequent breaks. He not drive or use heavy ma ‐ chinery when took medication.
Then vocational expert testified, opining Reinaas employment prospects if restricted doing light work could be off task for percent workday. would unemployable, however, if re quired unscheduled breaks longer one minutes. And employer would tolerate eight or nine unsched uled absences during year.
Following five step evaluation process, see C.F.R. § 404.1520, concluded disabled. She found obesity; degenerative disc disease; spine disorders; major joint dysfunction; ar thropathies, which were “severe”; longstanding mi graines, which disabling infre quently sought treatment them alleged onset. then concluded none impair
ments, alone or combination, met severity listed impairment presumptively establishing disability. Based functional capacity (“RFC”), found could return but, consistent vocational expert’s testimony about claimant qual ifications RFC, perform number jobs 19 1985 7 “light” level additional restrictions, including being off task up to percent of day. determining functional capacity, afforded great weight to opinions of Ruiz
Prosperi, non examining agency physicians. She agreed them subjective complaints were credible they “inconsistent” medi cal evidence.
She gave little weight Bodeau’s opinion disabled, explaining there “no evi dence had any knowledge of Social Security disability rules regulations,” only re turned lawyer’s request, report based complaints of questiona ble credibility.
After district court affirmed denial benefits, appealed. II. A NALYSIS
This court reviews decision see if it is sup ported substantial evidence—evidence reasonable mind might accept as adequate conclusion. See Biestek Berryhill , S. Ct. (2019).
A. Weight Treating Physician’s Opinion first argues provide good reason refusing give controlling weight *8 8 19 1985 April opinion. Because advanced this claim ‐ fore 2017, treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is supported by sound medical evidence consistent record. See C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Hall v. Ber ryhill , F.3d 640, (7th Cir. 2018).
Here, the ALJ concluded Dr. Bodeau’s opinion did deserve controlling weight because it was based on Reinaas’s report symptoms because it “inconsistent” record. But, the ALJ failed to adequately conclusions, her decision dis count Bodeau’s opinion is supported substantial evidence. See Meuser Colvin, F.3d (7th Cir. 2016).
First, ignored relevant regulatory considera tions assessing weight give Bodeau’s opinion about limitations. In declining afford opinion controlling weight, required to, but did not, ex plain her decision reference nature extent treatment area specialty. C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Hall , F.3d 644.
She also required specify what weight Bodeau’s opinion did deserve. C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Her answer ap pears have been “none,” she set forth, much less explain, determination. light specialty treatment relationship Reinaas, evidence sup port determination is less substantial. is occupational health specialist who, been treating least four years. reasonably knew medical history previous complaints and, thus, evaluate newly re ported symptoms. instead relied opinions ‐ non examining state retained physicians who have firsthand knowledge how symptoms have worsened over time. Gudgel v. Barnhart, F.3d (7th Cir. 2003).
Second, ALJ erred in determining that opinion was based solely Reinaas’s subjective complaints. True, Dr. Bodeau’s treatment notes catalog complaints about pain headaches. those treatment notes also show examined ob served visible muscle spasms, objective signs persistent nerve damage, limited range motion in before concluded “deteriorated significantly” permanently disabled.
Third, ALJ pointed several instances in medical records where doctors reported doing “well” recovery – but said nothing about accompanying notes still post complications. cannot prevail arguing improp *10 10 19 ‐ 1985 history of fusion surgeries, Bodeau’s pre cau ‐ tion that the cervical discs his were risk of degener ‐ ating.
Finally, ALJ discounted opinion be cause visited doctor year connection with his disability application. mere fact medi cal opinion has been solicited support applica tion is not sufficient reason ignore it. See Punzio v. Astrue, F.3d 704, (7th Cir. 2011). already treating relationship knew history. Thus, reasoning on this point does logically her conclusion.
B. Subjective Complaints also argues ALJ erred by discrediting subjective complaints its limiting effects capabilities. insists RFC should have been restrictive complaints credible light multiple impairments, improp erly assessed abilities respect daily activities. As result, says, her conclusion could still perform light spite impairments is supported substan tial evidence.
We agree properly sesses intensity limiting effects symptoms. See C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 3P, WL (Oct. 2017). First, ignored connection between migraines substantial history spinal problems surgeries—which reasonably ex pected produce disabling migraine like headaches. id. § 404.1529; Villano Astrue, F.3d (7th Cir. 19 1985 11 2009). ALJ only briefly acknowledged Reinaas’s spinal in jury fusion surgery, she scarcely addressed the previous diagnoses of cervicogenic headaches. And she not credit opinion, which corrob orates the testimony at hearing.
Second, ALJ cited ability to use a chainsaw, mow lawn, care child but ignored testi mony about fatigue activities cause limitations them. ALJs need address every piece evidence record, see Villano, F.3d at 562, but may ignore an entire line evidence contrary to her ruling. Meuser, F.3d 912. Here, discussed ability perform heavy activities on few “good” days every month failed address conten tions only do twenty minutes activity a time before needed rest bad days month. Again, problem is weighed evidence certain way; it is she cited evidence favorable her decision without discussing any contrary ev idence.
Finally, lived on farm rural Wiscon sin wife worked away farm, many ac tivities routine acts daily living small farm. testified “stuff has get done” frequently “work[ed] through pain.” We have previously cautioned ALJs there are critical differences between keeping activities daily living holding down full time job. Beardsley v. Colvin, F.3d (7th Cir. 2014); Bjornson Astrue, F.3d (7th Cir. 2012). And here, ability do limited maintain small farm does adequately conclusion would able full time.
For foregoing reasons, we VACATE judgment REMAND district court instructions remand agency further proceedings.
[1] “Light” requires either “a good deal walking or standing” or sitting “with pushing pulling arm or leg controls,” as well frequent lifting carrying objects weighing pounds no lifting pounds time. C.F.R. § 404.1567.
erly weighed evidence, correctly notes overlooked entire swaths it. An “cannot simply cherry pick facts supporting finding non disability while ignor ing evidence points finding.” Denton Astrue, F.3d (7th Cir. 2010). record shows that, despite progress phys ical therapy, continued report Bodeau, as well as Vrieze (his therapist) Israel (his surgeon). And, counsel points out, worsening symp toms noted report are consistent diagnosis chronic impingement,