White v. Astrue
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 12/13/12: (vkd, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
SALLY MAE WHITE,
Plaintiff,
No. 11 C 8040
v.
Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Ms. Sally Mae White seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying her application for Disability Insurance
Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the
Social Security Act (“Act”). Ms. White filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking a
judgment reversing or remanding the Commissioner’s final decision [dkt. 19]. For the reasons
set forth below, Ms. White’s motion is granted and her case is remanded to the SSA for further
proceedings.
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 4, 2007, Ms. White applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income claiming that a combination of impairments, including knee pain, foot cramps,
high blood pressure, and depression, prevented her from working.1 The Commissioner denied
1
R. at 163-67, 186.
Page 1 of 31
Ms. White’s applications initially on May 30, 2007, and upon reconsideration on August 31,
2007.2 Ms. White subsequently requested a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).3
A hearing took place in front of ALJ John Kraybill on March 11, 2009.4 Following the
hearing, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits, concluding that Ms. White was not disabled
within the meaning of the Act at any time after her application was filed.5 The Appeals Council
denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner.6 Ms. White
filed this action on November 11, 2011.
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This section is a brief review of the facts in the medical record that the ALJ reviewed at
Ms. White’s hearing and considered when rendering his decision. These facts provide a
summary of Ms. White’s medical history and the reasons she applied for disability. We begin
with her personal history and continue with an overview of her short medical record from before
her application for disability. Next, we discuss her application and her medical history following
her application until her ALJ hearing. We then summarize the ALJ hearing testimony and the
ALJ’s decision.
2
R. at 114-18, 125-34.
R. 135-36.
4
R. at 75.
5
R. at 66.
6
R. at 15-18.
3
Page 2 of 31
A.
Ms. White’s Personal Background
Ms. White was born on June 15, 1958, making her 50 years old on the date the ALJ
issued his final decision.7 She is five feet, seven inches tall and weighed 198 pounds on the date
of her application.8 Ms. White graduated from high school in 1976.9 Two years later, she got a
job working as a copy operator at the accounting firm Ernst and Young.10 She had her first and
only child in 1980, a son who she raised on her own.11 Ms. White left Ernst and Young in 1993,
after which she held a number of different jobs. She worked on an assembly line at ABC NACO
National Casting from 1994-2000.12 She also worked as a cook at Preferred Meal Systems from
2003-2005.13 Her most recent job was as a housekeeper at Sunrise Senior Living Services from
August 2006 to February 2007.14 Ms. White married in 2000.15 In 2002, Ms. White suffered two
separate hardships when her younger sister passed away and she lost her apartment.16 In 2004,
Ms. White’s husband left her.17 That same year, her son’s first child died of pneumonia at
sixteen months of age.18 At the time of her application, Ms. White had no income and no
resources and she received food stamps.19
7
R. at 63, 182.
R. at 185.
9
R. at 191.
10
R. at 294.
11
Id.
12
R. at 193.
13
R. at 187.
14
Id.
15
R. at 294.
16
R. at 393.
17
R. at 294.
18
Id.
19
R. at 166.
8
Page 3 of 31
B.
Pre-Application Medical History
We begin our review of Ms. White’s relevant past medical history starting in 2002 and
ending with her application in April 2007. In 2002, Ms. White started to suffer from major
depressive disorder. There are no corresponding medical records to document this 2002
diagnosis. However, in 2007, Ms. White’s treating psychiatrist, Adedapo Williams, M.D.,
conducted a medical assessment of her ability to do work related activities based on her mental
impairments.20 In his assessment, Dr. Williams noted she had suffered from major depressive
disorder since February 2002.21 This is corroborated by another record from a visit to Dr.
Williams in February 2007, wherein he noted that Ms. White alleged she suffered from
depression all her life, but it got worse in 2002 when her sister died and she lost her apartment.22
The bulk of Ms. White’s medical records are from 2006-2009. In June 2006, Ms. White
went to Fantus Health Clinic complaining of bilateral knee pain and intermittent swelling.23
Examination of her knees was essentially normal, and she was advised to take Motrin for 10
days.24 She was next seen in January 2007 for depressive symptoms after having lost her job at
Sunrise Senior Living Center.25 At this visit, Ms. White complained of stress, appetite change,
sleep deprivation, and muscle pains.26 She also said she had knee pain for “many years” made
worse by the weather.27 Additionally, she described grief over her dead grandson.28 She was
20
R. at 355.
Id.
22
R. at 393.
23
R. at 270.
24
Id.
25
R. at 262.
26
Id.
27
Id.
28
Id.
21
Page 4 of 31
diagnosed with osteoarthritis of bilateral knees and was referred to the Fantus psychiatric clinic
for treatment of her symptoms of depression.29
The following month, Ms. White went to the Fantus psychiatric clinic and met with her
treating psychiatrist, Dr. Williams, for the first time. During this visit, Ms. White complained of
insomnia, decreased appetite, and feelings of worthlessness, helplessness, guilt, and
hopelessness.30 Dr. Williams diagnosed Ms. White with major depressive disorder and
prescribed her two antidepressant medications.31 Finding herself unresponsive to medication,
Ms. White returned to Dr. Williams in March 2007 alleging nothing had changed.32 After a
mental status examination (“MSE”), Dr. Williams noted that she was tearful and dysphoric.33 He
assessed her with poor response to her medication and adjusted it.34 That same month at an
annual female examination, Ms. White reported feeling depressed and was assessed with
reactive depression due to the death of her grandson.35
C.
Application for Disability
Ms. White applied for disability benefits and supplemental security income on April 4,
2007, complaining of right foot cramps, depression, stress, and high blood pressure.36 In her
application, Ms. White alleged her disabilities first began to interfere with her work on January
1, 2007.37 She was unable to carry the mop and bucket necessary for her cleaning position at the
29
R. at 263.
R. at 394.
31
Id.
32
R. at 397.
33
Id.
34
Id.
35
R. at 274.
36
R. at 186.
37
Id.
30
Page 5 of 31
Sunrise Senior Center, and her pain prevented her from working fast enough.38 Ms. White
indicated that she stopped working altogether on February 14, 2007. She alleged that she is
unable to do even simple jobs because her right foot cramps so severely that she is forced to sit
down.39 She also reported that she cries every day.40 The SSA representative who filled out the
disability report observed that she had no trouble sitting, standing, or walking.41
Following her application, Ms. White underwent an internal medicine consultative
examination for the bureau of disability determination services in May 2007.42 The evaluation
was conducted by Peter Biale, M.D., who assessed her with painful knees, a painful right foot,
and psychiatric problems.43 Dr. Biale’s examination of her right foot and ankle did not reveal any
gross abnormality.44 Dr. Biale also concluded that Ms. White’s “painful knees” had no
limitations.45 The range of motion testing of her back and joints were also within normal limits.46
Also in May 2007 as part of her application, Ms. White underwent a psychiatric
evaluation by Harley G. Rubens, M.D., a consultant for the bureau of disability determination
services.47
Dr. Rubens diagnosed her with a dysthymic disorder and an adjustment disorder,
with mixed anxiety and depression.48 During this evaluation, Ms. White described daily activities
that included doing some light cleaning, microwave cooking, laundry, going grocery shopping
38
Id.
Id.
40
Id.
41
R. at 183.
42
R. at 297.
43
R. at 300. Although Dr. Biale assessed Ms. White with psychiatric problems, he left it to Dr. Harley
Rubens to address them in Dr. Rubens’ concurrent psychiatric evaluation of Ms. White.
44
Id.
45
Id.
46
R. at 297-300.
47
R. at 293.
48
R. at 296.
39
Page 6 of 31
with her mother, watching television, reading the Bible, and going to church every Sunday.49 She
alleged cyclic feelings of sadness and depression, but said she was able to continue to focus and
function.50 Dr. Rubens wrote that she described adjustment anxiety and depression because of
finances; losses of loved ones including a grandchild and a failed marriage; and anxiety about
her future and the pain she experienced in her knees.51 Ms. White was given a Global
Assessment of Functioning (“GAF”) Scale (DSM- IV Axis V) score of 65, indicative of
someone with mild symptoms but functioning pretty well.52
D.
Period Between Ms. White’s Application and Her ALJ Hearing
In May 2007, Ms. White went to the emergency room at Stroger Hospital complaining of
knee stiffness and pain with sitting and standing.53 The x-ray revealed arthritis and she was again
diagnosed with depression and degenerative joint pain in both knees.54 In June 2007, Ms. White
returned to the Stroger Hospital emergency room for pain in her right foot, but the x-ray taken
during that visit was within normal limits.55
During a psychiatric visit to Dr. Williams in June 2007, Ms. White voiced symptoms of
poor sleep, tiredness, general anxiety, paranoia, arthritis pain, and feeling hopeless and
helpless.56 Dr. Williams noted she still had poor response to her medications and subsequently
adjusted them.57 Ms. White returned to Dr. Williams the following month with complaints of
49
R. at 294.
R. at 296.
51
Id.
52
Id.
53
R. at 291.
54
R. at 292.
55
R. at 328.
56
R. at 398.
57
Id.
50
Page 7 of 31
having crying spells and suicidal ideas with no plan or intent.58 Ms. White also complained of
poor sleep and poor appetite.59 Despite these complaints, Dr. Williams’ progress notes from that
visit indicated Ms. White’s MSE was “essentially unremarkable.”60
On July 30, 2007, Dr. Williams completed a medical assessment of Ms. White’s
condition and ability to do work-related activities based on mental impairments.61 He opined
that Ms. White had a “moderate” limitation due to tiredness, poor concentration, and low stress
tolerance.62 Dr. Williams also indicated that Ms. White was moderately limited in the ability to
understand, remember and carry out short and simple instructions, maintain attention and
concentration for extended periods, and she was markedly limited with detailed instructions.63
Dr. Williams also determined Ms. White was markedly limited in sustaining an ordinary
routine without special supervision; markedly limited in maintaining regular attendance or
performing activities within a schedule; and markedly limited in all areas of social interaction
and adaptation.64 Dr. Williams further assessed the plaintiff with marked limitations in
completing a normal workweek without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms.65
In October 2007, Ms. White again sought treatment, and Stroger Hospital records
included complaints of right foot pain and the x-rays revealed degenerative joint disease.66
During this visit, Ms. White said her medications were still not helping her mood and she was
58
R. at 399.
Id.
60
Id.
61
R. at 356.
62
Id.
63
R. at 357.
64
R. at 357-58 (emphasis added).
65
R. at 358.
66
R. at 390.
59
Page 8 of 31
referred to Dr. Williams for a medication adjustment.67 Dr. Williams saw her again for a
follow-up on February 6, 2008, when she presented with no psychotic symptoms or suicidal
ideation.68 However, he did assess her with “pain syndrome.”69 On February 18, 2008, when seen
at Stroger for lab results, Ms. White denied any symptoms from her history of depression.70
Additional records dated May 13, 2008, show Ms. White “feels better” but still experienced
occasional crying spells, isolated herself, and felt uncomfortable in social situations.71 The
assessment indicated she was “improving.”72 Six days later, she returned to Stroger for follow-up
for her foot problem and also complained of depression.73 She was referred for a psychiatric
appointment with Dr. Williams.74 Based on the note from her medical visit to Stroger, the
appointment with Dr. Williams was scheduled for May 29, 2008.75 However, there is no record
to confirm whether that visit actually took place. On September 19, 2008, Ms. White went to
Stroger hospital complaining of left foot pain.76 An x-ray of her foot was taken that revealed a
very small plantar spur.77 This the last medical record in Ms. White’s file.
D.
The March 11, 2009 Hearing
Ms. White appeared and testified at a hearing held on March 11, 2009, in Chicago,
Illinois, before ALJ John Kraybill.78 Her attorney, Stephen Jackson, was also present.79 Also
67
R. at 388.
R. at 400.
69
Id.
70
R. at 409.
71
R. at 424.
72
Id.
73
R. at 425.
74
R. at 424, 427.
75
R. at 426.
76
R. at 433.
77
Id.
78
R. at 75.
79
R. at 66.
68
Page 9 of 31
appearing and testifying were Mark I. Oberlander, Ph.D., an impartial medical expert; and
Thomas A. Gusloff, an impartial vocational expert.80
1.
Ms. White’s Testimony
Ms. White began her testimony by confirming that although she used to live with a
friend, she has lived by herself since October.81 She described her most recent job as a part time
housekeeper.82 She testified that she quit because she was physically incapable of fulfilling her
job requirements.83 She was required to carry a “big mop bucket” up a flight of stairs and her
boss told her she took too long.84 She testified that she was given time off but decided not to
return to work because she was unable to do the work she was required to do.85 Ms. White also
confirmed that she had not worked at any job since February 14, 2007.86
In terms of Ms. White’s life and daily activities outside of work, she testified that during
the day she lies on the floor and watches television because it makes her feel better.87 Moving
from her position on the floor is difficult.88 She does not get dressed, shower, or leave the house
every day.89 She cooks some of her own microwave meals, but her mother takes her shopping
and helps with laundry.90 She testified that she is extremely reliant on her mother to take care of
80
R. at 75.
R. at 78.
82
R. at 79.
83
Id.
84
Id.
85
Id.
86
Id.
87
R. at 90.
88
Id..
89
R. at 91.
90
R. at 83.
81
Page 10 of 31
her.91 Ms. White also testified that she goes to church every week and is greatly comforted by
this activity.92
In terms of Ms. White’s physical health, she reported that she has pain in her knees and
hands but the worst pain she felt was in her left heel.93 She had previously been given a
cortisone shot for the pain, which helped for a few weeks, but her heel became infected and now
her pain is worse than before.94 Her knees swell and throb with pain.95 She testified that she can
only walk one block before she needs to stop and rest.96 She alleged that she can carry a couple
of pounds, but cannot grip for long periods of time because of the pain in her hand.97 She also
testified that her hands and back are stiff in the morning.98 Although she received general
assistance from the state, she was denied a Medicaid card.99
In terms of Ms. White’s mental health, she testified that she has never been hospitalized
for depression, but she is sad all the time and often cries for no reason.100
She has trouble
sleeping and eats only once a day.101 She also described instances where she heard voices calling
her name.102
91
Id.
R. at 82.
93
R. at 80, 85, 87.
94
R. at 81.
95
R. at 86.
96
R. at 85.
97
R. at 85, 88.
98
R. at 87-88.
99
R. at 82.
100
R. at 81.
101
R. at 82, 90.
102
R. at 89-90.
92
Page 11 of 31
2.
Medical Expert Testimony
Dr. Oberlander, the medical expert in this case, testified that he never physically
examined Ms. White, but that he had reviewed her medical record prior to the hearing.103 He
further testified that it was his opinion that Ms. White’s medical evidence supported impairments
under two different Social Security listings.104 He first discussed Ms. White’s affective disorder
under listing 12.04. He noted the various symptoms Ms. White had reported to treating sources
at Fantus Health clinic, including hypertension, sleep disturbance, psycho motor agitation,
anxiety, feelings of worthlessness, restlessness, and feeling on edge.105
He then noted a
concurrence between Ms. White’s treating sources at Fantus and Dr. Rubens’ consultative
report.106 Dr. Oberlander stated it was his clinical opinion that Ms. White’s affective disorder
was in part due to her non-mental issues, namely her alleged knee and foot pain.107
Dr. Oberlander then went on to point out that the majority of Ms. White’s medical
records were for medication renewal and not psychiatric treatment.108 He also determined that
there was “significant fluctuation of reported symptoms’ severity” in her contacts with treating
physicians.109
Dr. Oberlander testified that “the claimant with some frequency denies actual
psychiatric symptomatology.”110
In support of this testimony, he pointed to Ms. White’s
medical record dated February 19, 2008, wherein the treating source noted that she denied
103
R. at 94.
R. at 94-95.
105
R. at 95.
106
Id.
107
Id.
108
R. at 96.
109
Id.
110
Id.
104
Page 12 of 31
symptoms of depression.111 Next, he pointed to another medical record dated October 9, 2007,
wherein the treating source noted that her medication was not working.112
Dr. Oberlander also referenced Dr. Rubens’ consultative report in his testimony.113 He
testified that according to that report, Ms. White’s activities of daily living are within normal
limits.114 Dr. Oberlander testified that her symptoms listed in the report did not “quite add up to
a major depressive disorder.”115 Dr. Oberlander stressed the indications in the report that some
of Ms. White’s affective disorder is reactive and could represent unresolved grief over a number
of significant losses.116
In his final comments on the consultative report, Dr. Oberlander
testified that Dr. Rubens assigned Ms. White a GAF score of 65 and there was no evidence in the
record to suggest a change from that level of functionality.117
Dr. Oberlander also testified that a record dated May 13, 2008, and signed by Dr.
Williams indicated that Ms. White’s mental status was improving.118
This testimony was
followed by additional testimony that six days later, Ms. White returned to Dr. Williams who
noted that her symptoms of depression continued despite her medication.119
At this point, Dr.
Oberlander asked Ms. White if she had been back to Dr. Williams since May 2008, the last
111
Id.
Id.
113
R. at 96-97.
114
R. at 97.
115
Id.
116
Id.
117
Id.
118
Id.
119
Id.
112
Page 13 of 31
recorded visit in the record.120 Ms. White responded that she did not recall if she had seen Dr.
Williams since that date.121
Next, Dr. Oberlander discussed his opinion regarding Ms. White’s functional
limitations.122 He testified that on psychiatric grounds alone, “totally disregarding nonmental
issues,” it was his opinion that any restrictions on Ms. White’s daily activities are mild based on
Listings 12. 04 and 12.06.123 He further testified that her limitation on social functioning is
moderate; her limitation on maintaining concentration, persistence, and pace is moderate; and
there was insufficient evidence to support any periods of decompensation.124 It was his opinion
that criteria under 12.04 and 12.06 were not met in Ms. White’s case.125
At this point, the ALJ asked Dr. Oberlander if there would be any limitations on Ms.
White’s RFC as a result of her impairments.126 Dr. Oberlander testified that Ms. White retains
capacity for engagement in simple, repetitive work activities involving one or two step
operations.127 He recommended less than extensive contact with the public and coworkers.128
He also recommended vocational activities that are less than highly stressful.129
Finally, he
testified that in his opinion, Ms. White retains a capacity to engage in work activities that
involve some changes in routine and tasks.130
120
R. at 98.
Id.
122
R. at 99.
123
Id.
124
Id.
125
Id.
126
Id.
127
Id.
128
Id.
129
Id.
130
Id.
121
Page 14 of 31
Next, Ms. White’s counsel asked Dr. Oberlander some questions about her medication
and her suicidal thoughts.131 Dr. Oberlander testified that he was not qualified to comment on
her medication because he is not a medical practitioner, but that her medication “would seem
appropriate.”132 Regarding Ms. White’s suicidal thoughts, Dr. Oberlander requested permission
to ask Ms. White directly to elaborate.133
Ms. White testified that she had thoughts of suicide “all the time.”134 Specifically, she
described thoughts of overdosing on her medication or stepping in front of a car.135 In response
to a question from the medical expert, Ms. White testified that her suicidal thoughts did not have
to do with her pain.136 Rather, she attributed these thoughts to her feelings of hopelessness and
tiredness.137 There was no additional follow up regarding Ms. White’s testimony about her
suicidal thoughts. Immediately following her statements on the topic, Dr. Oberlander resumed
his testimony. In response to a question from Ms. White’s attorney, Dr. Oberlander testified that
he did not recall reading any reference to auditory hallucinations in Ms. White’s medical
record.138 Before the hearing concluded, Ms. White’s attorney pointed out a reference in her
medical record to her complaints of auditory hallucinations.139 Dr. Oberlander concluded his
testimony by saying he did not see any indications of doctors describing malingering or
symptom magnification anywhere in the medical record.140
131
R. at 100.
Id.
133
R. at 102.
134
Id.
135
R. at 102-103.
136
R. at 103.
137
R. at 102.
138
R. at 103.
139
R. at 112.
140
R. at 104.
132
Page 15 of 31
3.
Vocational Expert Testimony
At this point in the hearing, the ALJ directed questions to the vocational expert, Thomas
Gustav. After a brief recitation of his qualifications, the vocational expert asked Ms. White about
her prior work history.141 The vocational expert then went on to give his opinion regarding Ms.
White’s past relevant work. He testified that Ms. White’s past relevant work as a machine core
maker was a medium demand, semi-skilled position.142 Her past work as a head cook was skilled
and generally considered to be medium work, but it was light work as she performed it.143 The
vocational expert testified further that her work as a housekeeper was a light, unskilled job.144
The vocational expert then testified that given Ms. White’s age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, she would not be able to perform her past work.145
It was his testimony that she would be able to perform the requirements of representative
occupations such as linen grader/sorter, cafeteria attendant, and folding machine operator in
laundry.146
In response to questions from Ms. White’s attorney, the vocational expert testified that
the jobs he listed would require “frequent handling and fingering.”147 The vocational expert also
testified that the cafeteria attendant position required frequently lifting more than ten pounds.148
Finally, Ms. White’s attorney mentioned that her treating psychiatrist found her to be markedly
141
R. at 105.
R. at 107.
143
Id.
144
R. at 108.
145
Id.
146
Id.
147
R. at 109.
148
R. at 110.
142
Page 16 of 31
limited in her ability to complete a normal work day and work week without interruptions due to
her psychological symptoms.149
Ms. White’s attorney asked how this limitation, when
translated into a likelihood of being absent from work more than twenty percent of the time,
would impact her ability to perform the jobs the vocational expert listed.150 The vocational
expert concluded that such a limitation would not be compatible with competitive employment
in general or long term employment in the specific positions he mentioned.151
E.
The ALJ Decision
In his opinion issued March 27, 2009, the ALJ concluded Ms. White was not disabled
within the meaning of the Social Security Act from February 14, 2007, through the date of this
decision and was not entitled to any DIB and SSI.152 In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ
followed the five-step evaluation process outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).
The ALJs’ first step is to consider whether the claimant is presently engaged in any
substantial gainful activity, which would preclude a disability finding.153 In this case, the ALJ
found that Ms. White had not engaged in any substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset
date of February 14, 2007.154 The second step is for the ALJ to consider whether the claimant
has a severe impairment or combination of impairments.155
149
R. at 111.
Id.
151
Id.
152
R. at 66.
153
20 C.F.R.§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i).
154
R. at 68.
155
20 C.F.R.§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii).
150
Page 17 of 31
In the present case, the ALJ
concluded that Ms. White had the following severe impairments: degenerative joint disease of
bilateral knees, affective disorder, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder.156
The ALJ’s third step is to consider whether the claimant’s impairment meets or equals
any impairment listed in the regulations as being so severe as to preclude gainful activity.157 In
this case, the ALJ determined that Ms. White’s impairments did not meet or medically equal a
listed impairment, even in combination, under 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.158 In
reaching this conclusion, the ALJ considered whether Ms. White’s affective disorder satisfied
the criteria of an adult mental disorder under sections B and C of Listing 12.0. To satisfy the B
criteria, the claimant’s condition must have resulted in at least two of the following: marked
restriction of activities of daily living; marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning;
marked difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace; or repeated episodes of
decompensation, each of extended duration.
In this case, the ALJ determined that Ms. White had mild restriction in activities of daily
living and moderate difficulties in social functioning, concentration, and persistence or pace.159
The ALJ also determined that Ms. White had exhibited no episodes of decompensation.160
Therefore, the ALJ found the B criteria were not satisfied.161 He also considered whether the
paragraph C criteria were satisfied, and concluded the evidence failed to establish the presence
of that criteria as testified to by the medical expert at the hearing.162
156
R. at 68.
20 C.F.R.§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).
158
R. at 68.
159
R. at 69.
160
Id.
161
Id.
162
Id.
157
Page 18 of 31
In reaching these conclusions, the ALJ relied on the medical expert’s testimony that the
claimant’s mental impairment did not meet or equal the criteria of Listings 12.04 and 12.06.163
The ALJ also considered the opinions of the Disability Determination Services (“DDS”) medical
consultants who have evaluated Ms. White’s application at the initial and reconsideration levels
of the administrative review process and reached the same conclusion.164
In the event that no impairments are found to meet SSA listing requirements, the ALJ
proceeds to the fourth step of the test, which is to determine whether the claimant is able to
perform her past relevant work.165 This involves evaluating Ms. White’s residual functional
capacity (“RFC”) based on the record and her testimony and comparing it to the requirements of
her past work.166 A claimant’s RFC represents what a claimant can perform despite her physical
or mental limitations.167 If determining the claimant’s RFC requires the ALJ to assess subjective
complaints, then he follows a two-step process.168 First, he determines whether there is an
underlying medically determinable impairment, determinable by medically acceptable clinical
and laboratory diagnostic techniques that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s
symptoms.169 If so, the ALJ then evaluates the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a
claimant’s symptoms on his ability to do basic work activities.170 When making determinations
about the credibility of the claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ must consider the entire
163
Id.
R. at 68.
165
20 C.F.R.§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).
166
Id.
167
20 C.F.R.§ 404.1545(a)(4).
168
Id. at § 404.1529.
169
Id. at § 404.1529(b).
170
Id. at § 404.1529(c).
164
Page 19 of 31
record.171 If, after this process, the ALJ determines that the claimant’s RFC makes her able to
perform her past work, she is found not to be disabled.
In assessing Ms. White’s RFC, the ALJ determined that she would be unable to perform
past relevant work.172 However, the ALJ found that she could perform a limited range of
unskilled, simple, repetitive work that was low stress without high performance goals and
involved less than extensive contact with the public, coworkers, or supervisors.173
In assessing Ms. White’s subjective physical complaints, The ALJ reviewed her entire
medical record. He noted her many visits to Stroger hospital for pain in her knees and heels.174
The ALJ also referenced Ms. White’s forensic physical evaluation in May 2007 in which Dr.
Biale assessed her with a painful right foot and painful knees.175 The ALJ stated that Dr. Biale’s
examination of Ms. White’s right foot and ankle did not reveal any gross abnormality and her
knees had no limitations.176
In assessing Ms. White’s subjective mental complaints, the ALJ reviewed the medical
expert’s testimony that she has some limitations due to an affective disorder and a generalized
anxiety disorder.177 The ALJ also referenced Ms. White’s psychiatric consultative evaluation in
May 2007 by Dr. Rubens wherein he diagnosed her with a dysthymic disorder, and an
adjustment disorder, with mixed anxiety and depression.178 The ALJ also noted that Dr. Rubens’
171
Id. at § 404.1529(c)(4).
R. at 72.
173
R. at 69.
174
R. at 70.
175
Id.
176
Id.
177
Id.
178
R. at 71.
172
Page 20 of 31
report included a conclusion that Ms. White was capable of fairly active daily activities
including shopping, microwave cooking, and light cleaning.179 The ALJ further noted that Dr.
Rubens gave Ms. White a GAF score of 65, indicative of someone with mild symptoms but
functioning pretty well.180
Next, the ALJ considered the opinions of Dr. Williams, Ms. White’s treating psychiatrist.
Dr. Williams completed a medical assessment of Ms. White’s condition and ability to do
work-related activities based on mental impairments.181
The ALJ noted that Dr. Williams
concluded that his patient had a “moderate” limitation due to tiredness, poor concentration, and
low stress tolerance.182 She was moderately limited in the ability to understand, remember and
carry out short and simple instructions; and maintain attention and concentration for extended
periods; but would be markedly limited with detailed instructions.183 He also wrote that she was
markedly limited in all areas of social interaction and adaptation.184 The ALJ noted that at that
point in time, Dr. Williams had only seen Ms. White at an initial assessment and three
medication management visits.185
Finally, the ALJ referenced medical records dated May 13, 2008, that noted Ms. White
“feels better” but still experienced occasional crying spells, isolated herself, and felt
uncomfortable in social situations.186 The assessment indicated that she was improving.187
179
Id.
Id.
181
Id.
182
Id.
183
R. at 71-72.
184
R. at 72.
185
Id.
186
Id.
187
Id.
180
Page 21 of 31
Based on his review of the entire record, the ALJ concluded that Ms. White’s medically
determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce some of the alleged
symptoms.188 However, the ALJ concluded that Ms. White’s statements regarding the intensity,
persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms were not credible to the extent they were
inconsistent with her RFC assessment.189
In evaluating the weight to be given to Ms. White’s various medical sources, the ALJ
concluded that the opinions of the medical expert, Dr. Oberlander, were consistent with the
record as a whole and were therefore given “substantial weight.”190 The ALJ reasoned that
unlike most of Ms. White’s other medical sources, the medical expert had the opportunity to
review the claimant’s entire record and listen to her testify.191 The ALJ concluded that as a
result, the medical examiner was familiar with the claimant’s longitudinal medical record.192
After the ALJ determined that Ms. White was incapable of returning to past work, he
proceeded to the fifth step of the test, which was to evaluate whether Ms. White was able to
perform any other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.193 The ALJ
determined, that considering her age, education, work experience, and RFC, that jobs existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform.194 Based on the vocational
expert’s testimony, the ALJ determined that Ms. White could perform jobs in the Chicagoland
188
Id.
Id.
190
Id.
191
Id.
192
Id.
193
R. at 73.
194
Id.
189
Page 22 of 31
area as a linen grader or sorter, cafeteria attendant, and folding machine operator.195 Since there
were jobs available that Ms. White could perform, she was not disabled as defined by the Act.196
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court will affirm the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits if it is supported
by substantial evidence.197 Substantial evidence consists of “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”198 This evidence must be
“more than a scintilla but may be less than a preponderance.”199 In this substantial-evidence
determination, the Court considers the entire administrative record but does not reweigh
evidence, resolve conflicts, decide questions of credibility, or substitute the Court’s own
judgment for that of the Commissioner.200 Nevertheless, the Court conducts a “critical review of
the evidence” before affirming the Commissioner’s decision, and the decision cannot stand if it
lacks an adequate discussion of the issues.201
IV.
ANALYSIS
Ms. White now seeks the Court’s review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sections 405(g) and
1383(c)(3), alleging that (1) the ALJ did not properly consider Ms. White’s treating
psychiatrist’s opinion evidence; (2) the ALJ failed to set forth a credibility analysis of Ms. White
195
Id.
R. at 74.
197
Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 673 (7th Cir.2008).
198
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
199
Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 841 (7th Cir.2007).
200
Lopez ex rel. Lopez v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 535, 539 (7th Cir.2003).
201
Id.
196
Page 23 of 31
as required by Social Security Ruling 96-7p; and (3) the ALJ did not properly assess the impact
of Ms. White’s obesity, fatigue, and tiredness.
A.
Consideration of the Treating Psychiatrist Opinion: Dr. Williams.
First, Ms. White argues that the ALJ did not properly consider the opinions of her
treating psychiatrist Dr. Williams.202
Ms. White asserts that Dr. Williams’ opinions were
supported by substantial evidence in her medical record and, therefore, should have been given
controlling weight over the opinions of the medical examiner. The Commissioner responds that
the ALJ reasonably found that Dr. Williams’ opinions were not entitled to controlling weight.203
A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is
entitled to controlling weight unless the opinion is not supported by the medical findings and is
inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.204 Whenever an ALJ rejects a treating
source’s opinion, he must give a sound explanation for that decision.205 In this case, the ALJ
gave substantial weight to the opinions of the medical expert, Dr. Oberlander.206 The ALJ gave
two reasons in support of this decision: first, the medical expert’s opinion was “consistent with
the record as a whole” and second, the medical expert “had the opportunity to review Ms.
White’s entire record and listen to her testify.”207
First we consider the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Oberlander’s opinion was consistent
with the record as a whole. We find this is not a sound explanation for failing to explain the
202
Pl. Mot, at 5-9.
Com. Resp. at 3.
204
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).
205
20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 305–06 (7th Cir.2010).
206
R. at 72.
207
Id.
203
Page 24 of 31
weight afforded the treating psychiatrist’s opinion, if any. It is permissible to discount the
treating psychiatrist’s opinion when it is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with the record as
a whole.208 In his response brief, the Commissioner makes this assertion (that Dr. Williams’
opinion was not consistent with the record as a whole, including his own treatment notes).209
However, the ALJ’s decision can only be defended on grounds specifically provided by the
ALJ.210 In this case, the ALJ did not expressly state that Dr. William’s opinion was either
internally inconsistent or inconsistent with the record as a whole. The ALJ only states that
“[u]nlike most of the claimant’s other medical sources, [the medical expert] had the opportunity
to review the claimant’s entire record and listen to her testify. As a result he was familiar with
the claimant’s longitudinal medical record.”211 It is not enough for the Commissioner to argue
the reasoning the ALJ might have had after the fact.212 The reasons for discounting the treating
psychiatrist’s opinion must be explained, not implied.213 An “ALJ’s decision cannot leave the
weight given to the treating physician’s testimony to mere inference: the decision must be
sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the ALJ gave to the
treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.”214
We next consider the ALJ’s second reason for affording the medical expert’s opinions
substantial weight; he had the opportunity to review Ms. White’s entire record and listen to her
208
20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).
Com. Resp. at 4.
210
Shauger v. Astrue, 675 F.3d 690, 695 (7th Cir. 2012).
211
R. at 72.
212
Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805, 812 (7th Cir. 2011).
213
See Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011) (determining that to the extent that the ALJ
considered the treating psychiatrist’s assessments inconsistent or unsupported by the record, it was incumbent on the
ALJ to explain why); see also Dobrecevich-Voelkel v. Astrue, 776 F. Supp. 2d 878, 884 (E.D. Wis. 2011) (making
inferences from parts of an ALJ’s opinion is seldom enough for a reviewing court to conclude that the proverbial
“logical bridge” has been made).
214
Ridinger v. Astrue, 589 F.Supp.2d 995, 1006 (N.D.Ill.2008); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).
209
Page 25 of 31
testify. The Commissioner does not address this. Neither the ALJ nor the Commissioner explain
why hearing Ms. White testify on one occasion is more probative than hearing her several times
over the course of a year as Dr. Williams had. Although the ALJ need not address every piece of
evidence or testimony presented, he must adequately discuss the issues and build an accurate and
logical bridge from the evidence to conclusion.215 We find that the ALJ’s reason does not build
the requisite logical bridge.
Even if the ALJ provided sound reasons for refusing to give Dr. Williams’ opinion
controlling weight, the ALJ could not simply reject the opinion.216 The ALJ must still determine
what weight the opinion should be assigned by discussing the length, nature, and extent of the
treating relationship; the supporting evidence in the record; the consistency of the opinion with
the record; and the physician’s medical specialty.217 Whatever weight the ALJ decides to afford
the treating physician’s opinion, he must provide “good reasons” for his decision.218 Here, the
ALJ did not include any such discussion about the weight he gave to Dr. Williams’ opinions or
ultimate assignment of weight. As noted, the ALJ afforded the medical expert’s opinions
substantial weight, but it remains unclear what weight - if any - the ALJ afforded Dr. Williams’
opinions.
We should mention that the ALJ touches on one of the weight assignment factors
required under 20 C.F.R. section 404.1527(c) when he references the length of treatment and
frequency of examination. Specifically, the ALJ notes that the treating psychiatrist only saw Ms.
215
Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1160 (7th Cir.2010).
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).
217
Id.
218
Id.
216
Page 26 of 31
White four times when he made his assessment of her condition and ability to do work related
activities.219 But the ALJ does not expressly connect that number of visits with any potential
deficiency in the treating psychiatrist’s opinion. Nor does the ALJ cite this as a reason for
discounting Dr. Williams’ opinions. Finally, the ALJ does not discuss why the opinion of the
examining psychiatrist made after four visits over the course of a year would be less reliable than
the opinion of Dr. Oberlander, the non-examining psychologist.
B.
Ms. White’s Credibility Regarding the Severity of Her Complaints
Ms. White also argues that the ALJ impermissibly declined to follow the requirements of
Social Security Ruling 96-7 in making his credibility determination of Ms. White’s testimony
regarding her symptoms.220
Ms. White contends that the ALJ merely stated in a conclusory
fashion that Ms. White’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of
her symptoms were note credible to the extent they were inconsistent with the residual functional
capacity assessment.221
The Commissioner asserts that the ALJ’s decision reflects that he
considered multiple factors in assessing Ms. White’s subjective complaints.222
The
Commissioner also urges that the ALJ’s credibility determination is entitled to substantial
deference and should not be disturbed unless it is patently wrong.223
In finding that Ms. White’s subjective complaints are not credible, the ALJ need not
accept them if they conflict with objective evidence in the record.224
219
However, he must
R. at 72.
Pl. Mot. at 12.
221
Id.
222
Com. Resp. at 8.
223
Com. Resp. at 7 (relying on Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500, 504 (7th Cir. 2004)).
224
Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816, 822-23 (7th Cir. 2007).
220
Page 27 of 31
thoroughly examine the evidence and clearly articulate his findings.225 This is because in
reviewing the ALJ’s decision, we do not assess the whole record, only the reasons he gives.226 A
negative determination of credibility must “contain specific reasons for the finding . . . supported
by evidence . . . and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to the individual and to any
subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the individual’s statements and the
reasons for that weight.”227
In this case, the ALJ first reviews Ms. White’s testimony about her activities of daily
living, that she has had worse pain in the left heel, that she can walk one block, can only carry a
“couple of pounds,” that her hands are stiff in the mornings, and that though she has never been
hospitalized for depression, she can start crying for no reason and sometimes hears voices.228
Then the ALJ states:
After careful consideration of the evidence, I find that the claimant’s medically
determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged
symptoms; however, the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity,
persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible to the
extent they are inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity
assessment.229
There is literally no additional discussion of credibility anywhere in the ALJ’s decision.
The ALJ’s conclusory language “yields no clue to what weight the trier of fact gave the
testimony.”230 The Commissioner argues that the ALJ considered the applicable medical signs
225
Castile v. Astrue, 617 F.3d 923, 930 (7th Cir. 2007).
Steele v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2002).
227
Castile, 617 F.3d at 929 (quoting Shramek v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 809, 811 (7th Cir. 2000)).
228
R. at 72.
229
R. at 72.
230
See Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 709 (7th Cir.2011); Martinez v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 693, 696–97 (7th
Cir.2011); Spiva v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir.2010).
226
Page 28 of 31
and laboratory findings and also considered Ms. White’s “fairly active daily activities” in
assessing Ms. White’s physical impairments.231
But the ALJ does not list any specific
discrepancies between Ms. White’s testimony and the rest of her medical record or highlight any
specific deficiencies in Ms. White’s testimony.
Unfortunately, without more we cannot
determine whether the ALJ properly assessed the credibility factors mandated by Social Security
Ruling 96-7p.
C.
Assessment of Ms. White’s Obesity, Fatigue, and Tiredness
Ms. White also argues that the ALJ failed to assess not only her obesity, as required by
Social Security Ruling 02-1p, but also improperly omitted any discussion of her fatigue and
tiredness in her RFC under Social Security Ruling 96-8p.232
The Commissioner responds that
the ALJ’s failure to address certain specific findings does not render his decision unsupported by
substantial evidence because an ALJ need not address every piece of evidence in his decision.233
First, an ALJ must consider any limiting effects of obesity on a claimant’s overall
condition even if the claimant does not cite obesity as an impairment.234 But a failure to
explicitly consider the effects of obesity may be harmless error when the claimant fails to
articulate how her obesity limits her functioning and exacerbates her impairments.235 In this
case, Ms. White did not claim obesity as an impairment or explain how her obesity affects her
231
Com. Resp. at 8.
Pl. Mot. at 14-15.
233
Com. Resp. at 6 (relying on Sims v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 424, 429 (7th Cir. 2002)).
234
Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731, 736–37 (7th Cir.2006); Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 873 (7th
Cir.2000).
235
See Prochaska, 454 F.3d at 736–37; Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500, 504 (7th Cir.2004).
232
Page 29 of 31
ability to work. The record contains a few references to her weight.236 However, neither Ms.
White nor any of her examining physicians expressly connected her weight to her physical
limitations. And neither Ms. White nor her attorney mentioned her obesity during her hearing
before the ALJ. Therefore, the ALJ’s failure to expressly consider the impact of Ms. White’s
obesity was likely harmless error.
Next, an ALJ’s failure to assess fatigue and tiredness under Social Security Ruling 96-8p
may constitute reversible error when the record supports that these symptoms were related to
functional limitations and restrictions.237 In this case, we acknowledge that Ms. White’s medical
records contain references to her insomnia, sleep disturbances, and subsequent tiredness and
fatigue.238 In her testimony before the ALJ, she mentioned having difficulty sleeping and feeling
tired.239 However, her attorney did not inquire about those symptoms in his examination of the
medical and vocational experts. No examining or consulting physicians other than Dr. Williams
attributed Ms. White’s impairments to fatigue or tiredness. In his opinion, the ALJ did not
discuss Ms. White’s tiredness and fatigue except to note that during a June 2007 visit to Dr.
Williams, Ms. White voiced symptoms of poor sleep, and tiredness, and to note that during Dr.
Williams’ July 2007 evaluation he assessed her with a moderate limitation due to tiredness.240
But in her application and subsequent hearing, Ms. White did not specify how these impairments
236
R. at 298 (consultative physician describes her as “rather overweight”); R. at 308 (consultative physician
describes her as “moderately obese”); R. at 227-228 (Ms. White describes difficulty getting out of bed in the
morning, walking, standing, going up and down stairs, and getting in and out of cars).
237
See SSR 96-8p; Briscoe ex rel. Taylor v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 352 (7th Cir. 2005).
238
R. at 202-03, 210, 262, 294, 355, 375, 388, 393, 397-98, 427.
239
R. at 82, 102-103.
240
R. at 71.
Page 30 of 31
exacerbated her ability to work, so a remand on this issue would not affect the outcome of this
case.241
V.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Ms. White’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED
[dkt. 19] and this case is remanded to the SSA.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 12/13/12
______________________
Susan E. Cox
U.S. Magistrate Judge
241
See Lovelace v. Barnhart, 187 Fed. Appx. 639, 646 (7th Cir. 2006)(unpublished) (holding that where a
claimant does not specify how certain impairments in the record exacerbated his ability to work, a remand on those
issues would not affect the outcome of the case).
Page 31 of 31
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?