Muehlenkamp, Jill v. Colvin, Carolyn

Filing 17

ORDER describing issues for hearing and directing parties to consider meeting and conferring. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 08/14/2015. (bgw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
_________________________________________________________________________________
JILL MUEHLENKAMP,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

14-cv-449-wmc

CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
_________________________________________________________________________________
This matter has been set for oral argument on August 25, 2015, at 11:00 a.m.,
principally

to

address

whether

the

ALJ

has

adequately

accommodated

for

Muehlenkamp’s migraines in the Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) determination.
As the Commissioner is well aware, the ALJ must assess Muehlenkamp’s RFC “based on
all the relevant evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).
Examples of the types of evidence required to be considered in making an RFC
assessment are the claimant’s medical history, medical signs and laboratory findings, and
medical source statements. SSR 96–8p.
Based on all of the relevant evidence in the record, an ALJ must then make
specific findings. In particular:
The RFC assessment must include a narrative discussion
describing how the evidence supports each conclusion, citing
specific medical facts . . . and nonmedical evidence . . . . [T]he
adjudicator must discuss the individual’s ability to perform
sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a
regular and continuing basis . . . and describe the maximum
amount of each work-related activity the individual can
perform based on the evidence available in the case record.

The adjudicator must also explain how any material
inconsistencies or ambiguities in the evidence in the case record
were considered and resolved.
SSR 96–8p (emphasis added).
A narrative discussion describing how the evidence supports each conclusion
ensures that the record has been fully developed.

More importantly, it ensures that

evidence has not been cherry-picked by the ALJ to confirm a finding of non-disability.
Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, the court will seek guidance from the parties’ counsel during oral
argument with regard to the following:
1. Whether the ALJ adequately addressed Muehlenkamp’s medical records evidencing
her problems with migraine headaches (i.e., her 30 documented appointments
from April of 2010 to May of 2011 (Pl.’s Br. Reply (dkt. #16) 2.)).
2. Whether Muehlenkamp’s migraine headaches were properly accommodated for in
the RFC. The court will place particular emphasis on:
(a) Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118, 1122 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The ALJ’s RFC
determination . . . and the limitations presented to the vocational expert that
followed from that determination[] are conclusory and are based on findings that
failed to address the record as a whole.”);
(b) Herron v. Shalala, 19 F.3d 329, 333-34 (7th Cir. 1994) (declaring that the ALJ
must explain her analysis of the evidence with enough detail and clarity to permit
meaningful appellate review);

2

(c) Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir. 2009) (“Although an ALJ need not
discuss every piece of evidence in the record, the ALJ may not ignore an entire line
of evidence that is contrary to the ruling.”);
(d) Oliver v. Colvin, No. 12-cv-00400-wmc, 2014 WL 941820, at *5 (W.D. Wis.
Mar. 11, 2014) (addressing deficiencies in the RFC requiring remand).
3. The Commissioner also raises a harmless error argument, asserting that plaintiff
has not cited to any evidence of disabling migraine symptoms after May 2011,
which is the month in which the ALJ found plaintiff’s disability had ended. The
court will seek further clarification on this argument in light of plaintiff citing
notes mentioning complaints about migraines from her visits with Dr. Lehner on
September 1, 2011, and July 17, 2012. (Pl.’s Br. Sppt. Mot. Summ. J. (dkt. # 14)
7-8.)
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that: (1) in advance of the previously scheduled oral argument
on Tuesday, August 25, 2015, at 11:00 am, counsel prepare to address the issues above;
and (2) the parties consider meeting and conferring regarding a possible stipulated
remand before oral argument.
Entered this 14th day of August, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

/s/
________________________________________
William M. Conley
District Judge
3