Wheatman v. Colvin

Filing 32

OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion and Order, the Court grants the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment 23 and denies Wheatman's motion for summary judgment 16 . The Court affirms the ALJ's decision that Wheatman is not entitled to DIB. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail the ILND 450. Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 11/27/2018. Mailed notice(rj, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Scott R. Wheatman,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy
Commissioner of Operations, Social Security
Administration, 1
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 16 C 8639
Judge Sara L. Ellis

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Scott R. Wheatman seeks to overturn the final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying his application for disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423. Before the Court is
Wheatman’s appeal of the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision denying his application
for DIB and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. Because the Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) reasonably supported his determination that Wheatman did not suffer from
an impairment or combination of impairments that was severe at the time he was insured, the
ALJ did not err in denying Wheatman’s petition for DIB. The Court affirms the Commissioner’s
final decision denying Wheatman’s petition for DIB.
BACKGROUND
I.

Medical History
Wheatman was born in 1962. In March 2005, Wheatman underwent a colonoscopy

which resulted in a diagnosis of probable Crohn’s disease. AR 283. Between January 2007 and
The Court substitutes Nancy A. Berryhill for Carolyn W. Colvin as the proper defendant in this action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

1

January 2009, Wheatman received Remicade infusions at Northwest Gastroenterologist to treat
his Crohn’s disease. AR 276–282. In the medical records associated with each of his infusions,
the physician noted that Wheatman was doing well with the Remicade treatments and had no or
minimal symptoms related to his Crohn’s disease or other side effects. Id.
In January 2010, Wheatman received a Remicade infusion. AR 274. He reported to the
doctor that he had experienced bloating and more frequent bowel movements in the prior two
months, but that he had not had any incidents of incontinence. Id. The doctor observed
abdominal distention in addition to the increased frequency of bowel movements. Id.
Wheatman returned for an infusion in September 2010 and reported that he was doing well since
the prior infusion and had had no flares of his Crohn’s disease. AR 272.
In June 2011, Wheatman saw Dr. David Sales complaining that he had experienced
diarrhea and some urgency for three weeks and that it stopped on its own three days prior to the
appointment. AR 269. Wheatman also complained of fatigue. Id. Dr. Sales administered a
Remicade infusion at this appointment. Id. Dr. Sales also noted that the diarrhea was likely
infectious, meaning not related to his Crohn’s disease, and Wheatman’s Crohn’s disease was in
remission. AR 271. At his next appointment in August 2011, Wheatman reported that he had no
incidents of diarrhea since his last visit, but that he had two episodes of urgency, one of which
resulted in incontinence. AR 267. He declined a daily medication to avoid these incidents,
which the doctor classified as “rare.” Id. Wheatman also reported psoriatic-like plaques on his
arms and foot but noted that they were treated successfully with a topical cream and that they
were not temporally related to his Remicade infusions. Id. Wheatman received a Remicade
infusion and the doctor advised him to monitor the episodes of incontinence and the occurrence
of psoriasis. AR 268.

2

Wheatman received another Remicade infusion in November 2011, at which time he
reported no Crohn’s symptoms since his August infusion more than three months before. AR
265. Wheatman reported no new skin lesions and that the psoriasis continued to respond to the
topical treatment. Id. Around this same time, Wheatman saw his primary care physician and
reported to her that he was seeing Dr. Sales routinely and that he was doing well with his
Remicade infusions. AR 299. Wheatman received his last Remicade infusion in February 2012.
AR 262. Again, he had not had any symptoms from his Crohn’s disease since his last infusion.
Id. He stated that his psoriasis had been inactive lately but that he had a topical treatment that
was effective as needed. Id. Wheatman did not seek any treatment for his Crohn’s disease again
until May 2013.
In May 2012, Wheatman saw his primary care physician Dr. Cohen. AR 297–98. At this
appointment he complained of poor energy when working out and a cold. Id. He did not
complain of any gastrointestinal symptoms, arthritis, or skin conditions. Id. In January 2013,
Wheatman again visited Dr. Cohen. AR 294. He complained of wrist stiffness, primarily in his
left wrist, with no other joint swelling. Id. He did not report any gastrointestinal symptoms at
this appointment. AR 294–95. Dr. Cohen ordered a wrist x-ray, which showed mild
degenerative arthritis in his left wrist and no arthritis in his right wrist. AR 340.
In May 2013, Wheatman visited Dr. Hersh at NCH Medical Group for a gastroenterology
consultation. AR 414. He reported to Dr. Hersh that he tolerated the Remicade treatments well
until early 2012, when he began developing arthralgias, swelling, and psoriasis associated with
the infusions. Dr. Hersh performed a coloscopy of Wheatman on May 17, 2013. AR 384. The
coloscopy showed active Crohn’s colitis and internal hemorrhoids, and biopsies showed marked
active chronic Crohn’s colitis. Id. Dr. Hersh prescribed azathioprine, but this resulted in

3

Wheatman experiencing acute pancreatitis, for which he was admitted to the hospital. The
pancreatitis resolved with discontinued use of the azathioprine. Id. Dr. Hersh then prescribed
Humira on August 1, 2013. Id. He tolerated Humira well, having no diarrhea and reduced
urgency. Id.
In August 2013, Dr. Hersh completed a Crohn’s and Colitis Residual Functional Capacity
Questionnaire. He noted in this form that he began treating Wheatman in May 2013 and that
Wheatman’s symptoms of diffuse abdominal cramping, bloating, chronic diarrhea, and urgency
persisted since May 2012. AR 375. Dr. Hersh also noted that the Remicade infusions caused
psoriasis and the Azathioprine caused pancreatitis. AR 374. Dr. Hersh further noted that
Wheatman was likely to have good days and bad days and that he would likely need to be absent
from work one day per month. AR 377.
II.

Employment History
Wheatman completed high school. AR 31. Wheatman was last employed in 2007 at a

mortgage brokerage company. AR 37. He left that job because the company closed. AR 38.
He held that position from 2004 through 2007. Id. Before that he worked in customer service at
a call center and at a car dealership for a couple of years. Id. Since leaving his employment at
the mortgage brokerage, Wheatman attempted to obtain work as a commercial truck driver and
as a security guard but determined he could not do those jobs with Crohn’s disease. AR 38–40.
III.

Disability Claim and Hearing Testimony
On March 14, 2013, Wheatman filed for DIB, alleging that he became disabled on

January 1, 2008. AR 7. His date last insured was December 31, 2012. Id. He received a denial
of his claim on July 3, 2013 and again on reconsideration on January 29, 2014. AR 12.
Wheatman requested a hearing, which was held on December 9, 2014, and at which Wheatman

4

had counsel. Id. An impartial vocational expert and Mark Oberlander Ph.D., an impartial
medical expert, also testified at the hearing. Id.
IV.

The ALJ’s Decision
On January 30, 2015, the ALJ found that Wheatman was not disabled though December

31, 2012, the date last insured. AR 12–21. Following the five-step analysis used by the Social
Security Administration to evaluate disability, the ALJ found at step one that Wheatman had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 1, 2008, his alleged onset date, and so he
proceeded to step two, where he found that Wheatman’s Crohn’s disease, anxiety, and wrist
arthritis did not constitute severe impairments. AR 14. A severe impairment is one that
significantly limits an individual’s capacity to perform basic work activities. AR 13.
The ALJ chronologically went through Wheatman’s medical history during the time he
was insured. The ALJ noted that September 2010 medical records indicate that Wheatman was
doing well on Remicade and his Crohn’s disease was in remission. The June 2011 medical
records show that Wheatman had diarrhea, but it resolved on its own. The ALJ next noted that in
August 2011 Wheatman reported two episodes of urgency, once with incontinence, in an eightweek period, but declined additional medication to prevent these flare-ups. The ALJ stated that
declining this medication is not consistent with someone who has a severely restricting
condition. AR 16.
The ALJ next noted that at the November 2011 doctor’s appointment his Crohn’s disease
was in remission and the psoriasis had not recurred. AR 16–17. And again, at the February
2012 appointment, Wheatman’s Crohn’s disease appeared to be under control and he was not
experiencing any adverse effects from the Remicade. AR 17. This appointment was
Wheatman’s last appointment with a gastroenterologist during the insured period. The ALJ

5

noted the only subsequent doctor’s appointment Wheatman attended during the insured period
pertained to him having low energy; however, the physician attributed this to Wheatman having
the flu. AR 17. The ALJ noted that in the period prior to December 2012 there is no indication
that Wheatman’s Crohn’s was not controlled. Id.
The ALJ next discussed the gap in Wheatman’s treatment for Crohn’s disease that
spanned February 2012 through May 2013. Id. The ALJ stated that Wheatman’s claims
regarding the severity of his symptoms and limitations are inconsistent and unpersuasive in light
of evidence in the record. Id. During this approximately fourteen-month gap in treatment, there
were no incidents requiring hospitalization or even a visit to a physician. AR 17–18. The ALJ
concluded that this indicates Wheatman’s Crohn’s disease was controlled and stable during this
period. Id.
The ALJ also considered the medical opinion of Dr. Hersh that Wheatman submitted.
AR 18. In August 2013, Dr. Hersh opined that Wheatman’s symptoms persisted since May
2012. AR 375–77. The ALJ found that Dr. Hersh’s opinion on this matter was merely
speculative because there was no treatment record to support this opinion for the period prior to
Dr. Hersh establishing care in May 2013. AR 18. Furthermore, the ALJ concluded that Dr.
Hersh may have been motivated in part by a desire to help Wheatman. Id. He based this opinion
on the fact that Dr. Hersh offered an opinion that would help Wheatman establish the existence
of his disability during the insured period despite Dr. Hersh having no documentation to support
that conclusion. AR 19. Thus, the ALJ gave Dr. Hersh’s opinion little weight. Id.
The ALJ also considered the opinion of Dr. Cohen and gave it little weight as well. Id.
Dr. Cohen opined in November 2014 that Wheatman’s Crohn’s disease would prevent him from
working because he requires frequent bathroom breaks and experiences insomnia, cramping, and

6

rectal bleeding. Id. However, because there is minimal support for these symptoms occurring
during the insured period, the ALJ gave this opinion little weight. Id. Dr. Cohen also stated that
Wheatman elected to discontinue the Remicade treatments because of the psoriasis and arthritis.
Again, the ALJ found these statements unsupported by the contemporaneous medical records
and gave the opinion little weight. Id.
After discussing all of Wheatman’s medical evidence, both the contemporaneous
documentation and the documentation from Drs. Hersh and Cohen from outside of the insured
period, the ALJ concluded that the allegations of increased intensity and severity of Wheatman’s
symptoms between February 2012 and May 2013 was not credible. Id.
The ALJ then considered the evidence regarding Wheatman’s anxiety, depression, and
arthritis. AR 19–22. The ALJ concluded that these issues also did not on their own or in
combination with the Crohn’s constitute a severe impairment. 2 Thus, the ALJ determined that
Wheatman was not disabled during the insured period and denied his claim. AR 22.
On March 30, 2015, Wheatman requested a review of the ALJ’s decision from the
Appeals Council. AR 7. The Appeals Council denied review on July 8, 2016, AR 1–5, making
the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Wheatman now seeks judicial review
of the ALJ’s decision.
LEGAL STANDARD
I.

Standard of Review
In reviewing the denial of disability benefits, the Court “will uphold the Commissioner’s

final decision if the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and supported her decision with
substantial evidence.” Bates v. Colvin, 736 F.3d 1093, 1097 (7th Cir. 2013). Substantial
Wheatman does not argue that the ALJ erred in this assessment, therefore, the Court does not provide
detailed recounting of the ALJ’s opinion or the medical records on these issues.

2

7

evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971)
(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the Court reviews the entire
record, it does not displace the ALJ’s judgment by reweighing facts or making independent
credibility determinations. Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 834, 836–37 (7th Cir. 2014). But
reversal and remand may be required if the ALJ committed an error of law or the decision is
based on serious factual mistakes or omissions. Id. at 837. The Court also looks to “whether the
ALJ built an ‘accurate and logical bridge’ from the evidence to her conclusion that the claimant
is not disabled.” Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 513 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Craft v. Astrue,
539 F.3d 668, 673 (7th Cir. 2008)). “[H]e need not provide a complete written evaluation of
every piece of testimony and evidence,” Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306, 310 (7th Cir. 2012)
(quoting Schmidt v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 737, 744 (7th Cir. 2005)), but “[i]f a decision ‘lacks
evidentiary support or is so poorly articulated as to prevent meaningful review,’ a remand is
required,” Kastner v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 642, 646 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Steele v. Barnhart, 290
F.3d 936, 940 (7th Cir. 2002)).
II.

Disability Standard
To qualify for DIB, a claimant must show that he is disabled, i.e., that he is unable to

“engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or
mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be
expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A);
Weatherbee v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 565, 568 (7th Cir. 2011). To determine whether a claimant is
disabled, the Social Security Administration uses a five-step sequential analysis. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520; Kastner, 697 F.3d at 646. At step one, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has

8

engaged in substantial gainful activity during the claimed period of disability. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i). At step two, the ALJ considers whether the claimant’s physical or mental
impairment is severe and meets the twelve-month durational requirement. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii). At step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairment(s)
meet or equal a listed impairment in the Social Security regulations, precluding substantial
gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. If the
claimant’s impairment(s) meet or medically equal a listing, the individual is considered disabled;
if a listing is not met, the analysis continues to step four. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). At
step four, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to engage in
past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). If the claimant can engage in past relevant work, he
is not disabled. Id. If he cannot, the ALJ proceeds to step five, in which the ALJ determines
whether a substantial number of jobs exist that the claimant can perform in light of his residual
functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v). An
individual is not disabled if he can engage in other work. Id. The claimant bears the burden of
proof on steps one through four, while the burden shifts to the government at the fifth step.
Weatherbee, 649 F.3d at 569.
ANALYSIS
In seeking to overturn the ALJ’s decision, Wheatman argues that the ALJ incorrectly
concluded that his Crohn’s disease was not a severe impairment at step two of the sequential
evaluation process.
Wheatman first applied for DIB in March 2013, after his date last insured had passed.
Because a person must be insured at the time of his disability, typically applying outside of his
insured period would preclude Wheatman receiving DIB. 20 C.F.R. 404.315. But, pursuant to

9

agency rules, if Wheatman can show that he became disabled prior to the last date he was insured
and that this disability continued unabated until at least one year prior to his application, that
tolls the expiration of his insured status. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.320(a), (b), 404.321(a); POMS DI
25501.240, RS 00605.215. Therefore, to succeed in his application for DIB, Wheatman needs to
show that he was disabled continuously from March 2012 through March 2013, when he applied
for benefits.
The parties agree that Wheatman satisfies the first prong of the five-step sequential
analysis; therefore the Court turns to the second step. At step two, the ALJ must determine
whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limits
his ability to perform basic work-related activities for 12 consecutive months. 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1521 et seq., 416.909. A severe impairment is one that “significantly limits [the
claimant’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). It is
not severe if evidence establishes only a “slight abnormality or a combination of slight
abnormalities which would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to
work.” Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 154 n.12, 107 S. Ct. 2287, 96 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1987)
(quoting Social Security Ruling 85-28). The ALJ should assess the claimant’s symptoms and
whether those symptoms are consistent with all available objective medical evidence and other
evidence. See Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims, SSR 16-3p. The
bar for severity is low, but the burden is on the claimant at this stage. Castile v. Astrue, 617 F.3d
923, 926 (7th Cir. 2010).
Looking first at the objective medical evidence created contemporaneously with
Wheatman’s treatment during the insured period, the ALJ’s conclusion that Wheatman’s Crohn’s
disease was not a severe impairment is logical and supported by the evidence. The medical

10

records at most indicate a few instances of urgency, diarrhea, bloating, cramping, and very
minimal incontinence. Between January 2007 and January 2009, the medical records indicate
that Wheatman was doing well with his Remicade infusions and had experienced no symptoms
of Crohn’s disease. In 2010, he continued to do well on Remicade, although he did experience
increased bowel movements and some abdominal distention in late 2009 and early 2010. But
following his January 2010 infusion he reported no further Crohn’s symptoms. In mid-2011,
Wheatman reported having diarrhea to his doctor, but the doctor concluded this was unrelated to
his Crohn’s disease and likely was the result of an infection. The doctor noted that Wheatman’s
Crohn’s disease continued to be in remission. In August 2011, Wheatman again saw his doctor
and reported no diarrhea, but two episodes of urgency, one of which resulted in incontinence.
He declined medication to help him prevent future incidents like this.
At his November 2011 appointment Wheatman reported no Crohn’s symptoms since his
August infusion. He visited Dr. Cohen around this same time and reported to her that he was
doing well with his Remicade infusions. Wheatman received his last Remicade infusion in
February 2012 at which time he reported no symptoms from his Crohn’s disease since his last
infusion. Thus, according to the objective, contemporaneous medical records, during the insured
period there is no documented Crohn’s related diarrhea, two incidents of urgency and only one
incident of incontinence. All other documentation indicates the Remicade infusions were
effectively managing Wheatman’s Crohn’s disease symptoms.
The next set of documentary evidence is from the period after Wheatman’s date last
insured. The ALJ reviewed both Dr. Cohen’s medical records and Dr. Hersh’s records and
submissions. Dr. Cohen’s medical records from before January 2013 are consistent with the
records described above regarding his Crohn’s disease. In January 2013, she saw Wheatman for

11

pain in his wrist and ordered an x-ray. There is no indication in those records that he was
experiencing any symptoms of Crohn’s disease, despite it being nearly a year since he last had
any medical treatment for it. There are no subsequent medical records from Dr. Cohen until
November 2014 when she provided a letter stating that it is difficult for him to work because of
his fatigue, cramping, insomnia, bloating, and rectal bleeding. She also noted that he
discontinued Remicade due to the psoriasis and arthritis. However, neither of these statements is
supported by her treatment notes from the insured period. There is no mention of arthritis during
the insured period, and all indications in the medical records are that Wheatman’s psoriasis was
well controlled and for much of the time in complete remission. Therefore, the ALJ reasonably
discounted this letter.
The ALJ also reasonably discounted Dr. Hersh’s assessment that Wheatman was
experiencing severe symptoms of Crohn’s disease between May 2012 and May 2013. As the
ALJ noted, Wheatman received no treatment for his Crohn’s disease during this period.
Additionally, at the two doctor’s appointments he had during this period with Dr. Cohen, he
made no mention of any Crohn’s symptoms. The complete lack of documentary support for Dr.
Hersh’s conclusions, coupled with the contradictory evidence contained in Dr. Cohen’s notes
amply supports the ALJ’s decision to give Dr. Hersh’s opinion little weight. 3 An ALJ may
properly discredit a medical opinion, even that of a treating physician, so long as he provides
“good reasons” for doing so, and “[t]his court upholds all but the most patently erroneous
reasons for discounting a treating physician’s assessment.” Luster v. Astrue, 358 F. App’x 738,
740 (7th Cir. 2010); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842
The ALJ also stated that Dr. Hersh may have been motivated in part by a desire to help Wheatman
obtain benefits. The Court agrees that given the fact that Hersh’s opinion is completely unsupported by
the documentary evidence and conspicuously reaches back into the insured period, Dr. Hersh’s potential
desire to assist Wheatman was likely a factor. However, the lack of evidentiary support alone is sufficient
to affirm the ALJ’s decision on this point.

3

12

(7th Cir. 2007) (ALJ must provide an adequate explanation of his decision not to give controlling
weight to the opinion of a treating physician).
Wheatman argues that the ALJ should have recontacted Dr. Hersh to seek clarification of
his opinion, and that failure to do so was an error. In some cases, an ALJ must contact a treating
physician to obtain clarification, see SSR 96-2p, but here, where it is not clarification that is
lacking, but a basis for his opinions, additional information from Dr. Hersh would not have aided
the ALJ. It is apparent from the complete medical file that Dr. Hersh did not examine Wheatman
prior to May 2013.
Wheatman argues that it was an error for the ALJ to rely on Wheatman’s gap in treatment
to find his description of his symptoms not credible. An ALJ may find a claimant’s statements
“less credible . . . if the medical reports or records show that the individual is not following the
treatment as prescribed,” SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *7, but “such evidence should not
negatively affect an individual’s credibility if there are good reasons for the failure,” Murphy v.
Colvin, 759 F.3d 811, 816 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 562 (7th Cir.
2009) (“[T]he ALJ must not draw any inferences . . . from this failure unless the ALJ has
explored the claimant’s explanations as to the lack of medical care.” (citation omitted) (internal
quotation marks omitted)); Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he ALJ was
required . . . to consider explanations for instances where [the claimant] did not keep up with her
treatment[.]”). Here, Wheatman says he discontinued the Remicade treatment because in his
opinion it was causing arthritis and psoriasis. But, as the ALJ noted, these side effects are not
supported by the contemporaneous medical records. There is no mention of arthritis in his
medical records prior to January 2013 and each mention of his psoriasis indicates that it was well

13

controlled. Thus, the ALJ’s determination that Wheatman’s description of his symptoms was not
credible because he discontinued treatment is adequately supported by the record.
Wheatman also argues that the ALJ did not properly account for the fact that Crohn’s is a
chronic disease that waxes and wanes in severity. Wheatman does not clearly explain how the
ALJ failed to consider the nature of Crohn’s or what impact this had on his analysis. It seems
Wheatman is arguing that because Crohn’s disease is characterized by periods of remission and
recurrence, the ALJ should have assumed that despite several years of minimal symptoms and
remission, the undocumented period during which Wheatman did not attempt to receive any
treatment was likely a period of active Crohn’s symptoms. The ALJ adequately supported his
conclusion that Wheatman was not suffering severe Crohn’s symptoms during this period, and
there is no indication he discounted the potential for recurrence of Wheatman’s Crohn’s
symptoms. In the case Wheatman cites on this point, the ALJ erred in finding that evidence of a
patient showing some improvement in his multiple sclerosis symptoms was inconsistent with the
treating physician’s notes. Vincil v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 12-12728, 2013 WL 2250580, at
*12–13 (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2013). The district court held that with a chronic disease like
multiple sclerosis periodic signs of remission is not inconsistent with opinions rendered at other
times that the claimant suffered severe symptoms. Id. The ALJ here discounted no testimony on
this basis. Presumably had there been some documentary evidence of Wheatman’s symptoms
becoming worse during late 2012 to early 2013, the ALJ would have credited these records.
Unfortunately, because Wheatman was not receiving any treatment at that time, there are no such
records. Therefore, the ALJ did not inappropriately fail to consider the chronic nature of
Crohn’s disease.

14

Because the ALJ adequately supported his conclusion that Wheatman did not suffer an
impairment or combination of impairments that significantly limited his ability to perform basic
work-related activities for 12 consecutive months prior to his applying for DIB, the Court affirms
the ALJ’s decision.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Commissioner’s motion for summary
judgment [23] and denies Wheatman’s motion for summary judgment [16]. The Court affirms
the ALJ’s decision that Wheatman is not entitled to DIB.
Dated: November 27, 2018

______________________
SARA L. ELLIS
United States District Judge

15