Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Penrod applied for disability benefits and supplemental security income in 2010, at age 45, after having a heart attack. The district court affirmed the denial of benefits. Penrod filed a second application for disability insurance benefits only, alleging that he was disabled because of arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, short‐term memory loss, and asthma, from April 2012-June 2013. Medical evidence was sparse. After his heart attack, Penrod received a stent and regular follow‐up care. Penrod’s poverty and lack of health insurance complicated his treatment. After reviewing Penrod’s medical records, two consultative doctors agreed that he could perform light work, with postural and environmental limitations. At a hearing, Penrod focused on the difficulty of finding a job with his limited education, noting his inability to stand or sit for prolonged periods, limited grip, fatigue and dizziness from his medications, pain in his hips and back, and kidney stones. He had suffered another heart attack in 2014. After the hearing, Penrod died from cardiac arrest. The ALJ denied Penrod’s application, finding that although Penrod’s impairments could result in the types of symptoms he alleged, the medical evidence did not support his testimony about his limitations. The ALJ noted Penrod’s smoking and his frequent reports that he was unable to afford medications and recommended tests in assessing his credibility. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Substantial evidence supported a finding that Penrod retained the capacity to work through his last insured date. View "Penrod v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

Spicher suffers from osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, fibromyalgia, and morbid obesity. In 2010, Spicher applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income dating back to 2003. After a 2012 hearing, an ALJ found that Spicher was not disabled from 2003-2012. The district court remanded because the ALJ had not properly considered the limitations imposed by Spicher’s obesity, independently and in combination with her other impediments. On remand, Spicher focused on whether she had been disabled since December 2008, when her insured status expired. The ALJ consulted a second doctor who essentially adopted the findings of the medical reports already in the record. The ALJ stated that further consideration of Spicher’s obesity had not motivated her to change her conclusion, finding that Spicher could hold a sedentary position and perform three jobs identified by a vocational expert, and could occasionally crouch, crawl, balance, stoop, and kneel. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ did not address contradictory medical evidence when determining the types of sedentary jobs that Spicher could hold and failed to consider the interaction between her obesity and her non‐severe impairments. The court rejected a claim that the ALJ displayed antagonism toward Spicher in violation of her due process rights. View "Spicher v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

Lambert applied for Disability Insurance Benefits in 2012 at age 41 alleging disabling lower back pain. In 2004 discs in his lumbar spine had been surgically fused with a rod. In 2008 surgeons repaired the rod. In 2010 Lambert began experiencing back pain “most of the time” and had “intermittent” pain down his left leg that often caused him to fall. By late 2012 Lambert had tried steroid injections in his spine and pelvis, chiropractic care, medication, and physical therapy. Several neurosurgeons found the cause unclear; three said further surgery was not an option. In denying Lambert’s application, an ALJ concluded that Lambert suffers from degenerative disc disease that is severely impairing but not disabling, giving little weight to the most recent opinions of his treating neurosurgeon and discrediting Lambert’s own testimony about the severity of his pain and extent of his limitations. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The ALJ failed to explain why the treating neurosurgeon’s opinions were entitled to less weight than those of the agency physicians, rendered before some key medical evidence was compiled. The ALJ improperly relied on Lambert’s application for unemployment compensation to discount his credibility in seeking disability benefits; a claimant’s desire to work is not evidence that the claimant has embellished his limitations. View "Lambert v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

In 2007, Chavez, then 21, was diagnosed with a brain tumor and underwent five surgeries. Chavez experienced depression and anxiety. She struggled to maintain concentration to complete simple household tasks and suffered from migraine headaches, back pain (caused by degenerative disc disease), and numbness in her feet and hands. Chavez had no prior work experience. In 2010 Chavez applied for Social Security supplemental security income. Chavez could perform only simple, routine tasks with significant restrictions on how much she could lift. The vocational expert enlisted by the agency to estimate the number of jobs suitable for Chavez testified that for one particular job there were either 800 or 108,000 existing positions but preferred the larger estimate. The administrative law judge agreed and denied Chavez’s claim. The district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit vacated. The decision was not supported by substantial evidence; the ALJ failed to ensure that the vocational expert’s job estimates were reliable. The vocational expert offered no explanation for why his estimates (or his method) were reliable, instead reaching a conclusion by determining that the estimates yielded by an alternative method seemed too low. By affording such broad deference to the vocational expert’s chosen estimates, the ALJ relieved the agency of its evidentiary burden at the final step of the analysis, impermissibly shifting the burden to Chavez. View "Chavez v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

In 2000, Kaminski fell down a flight of stairs, suffering a head wound that caused a traumatic brain injury and a seizure disorder. He applied under the Social Security Act for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income 13 years later. The Social Security Administration denied his applications; the district court upheld the denial. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the administrative law judge improperly rejected his treating physician’s opinions. The treating physician’s opinions and the testimony of the vocational expert together show that Kaminski is disabled. View "Kaminski v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

Britt, now 55, applied for Disability Benefits and Supplemental Security Income after a construction crane smashed his big toe in 2008. An ALJ granted Britt benefits for the period beginning in March 2013, but denied him benefits for the four-year period immediately preceding that time because he could perform sedentary work. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Britt’s argument that the ALJ disregarded his testimony about his need to elevate his foot, as well as an orthopedic surgeon’s report about the same, and gave too little weight to an agency doctor’s opinion that he could work for only 3.5 hours in a day. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. View "Britt v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

Stephens was born in 1957 and has a ninth-grade education. He worked as a taxi dispatcher and a security guard in the 15 years preceding his alleged disability. Stephens contends that he is disabled by diabetes, kidney disease, knee and back pain, heart disease, high blood pressure, asthma, arthritis, and obesity. He was denied Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. On remand, a different ALJ determined that Stephens’ impairments, although severe, were not disabling and that he could perform relevant past work. The district court and Seventh Circuit upheld the denial, rejecting arguments that the ALJ erred by improperly evaluating Stephens’s obesity (no longer a stand-alone disability) when determining the aggregate impact of his impairments; that the ALJ’s finding that the record lacked medical opinion evidence as to Stephens’ hypersomnolence or excessive sleepiness; and that the ALJ failed to incorporate all of his impairments and consider their combined impact to evaluate his residual functional capacity. View "Stephens v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

Akin, a 47-year-old woman, claims that she became disabled in 2011 principally from fibromyalgia, back and neck pain, and headaches. An administrative law judge denied her application for Supplemental Security Income. The Seventh Circuit remanded, based on Akin’s arguments that the ALJ wrongly discounted her allegations of back pain; improperly credited the opinions of agency physicians who had not reviewed all of the medical records, including relevant MRI scans; and ignored her complaints of headaches. The ALJ impermissibly “played doctor” by impermissibly interpreting the MRI results himself. The ALJ should have developed a more fulsome record about Akin’s testimony of pain before discounting it and improperly discredited Akin because of her conservative course of treatment. View "Akin v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

Akin, a 47-year-old woman, claims that she became disabled in 2011 principally from fibromyalgia, back and neck pain, and headaches. An administrative law judge denied her application for Supplemental Security Income. The Seventh Circuit remanded, based on Akin’s arguments that the ALJ wrongly discounted her allegations of back pain; improperly credited the opinions of agency physicians who had not reviewed all of the medical records, including relevant MRI scans; and ignored her complaints of headaches. The ALJ impermissibly “played doctor” by impermissibly interpreting the MRI results himself. The ALJ should have developed a more fulsome record about Akin’s testimony of pain before discounting it and improperly discredited Akin because of her conservative course of treatment. View "Akin v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

RTSI produces and maintains traffic safety systems. Rosenberg was RTSI’s Vice President of Sales. RTSI contracted to manage Chicago's automated red light enforcement program. In 2012, the Chicago Tribune published articles, disclosing an improper relationship between a city employee (Bills) and RTSI. The city removed RTSI’s bid for the new contract. The City Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigated the bribery scheme. RTSI conducted an independent investigation and provided OIG with information. OIG advised Rosenberg that he had a duty to cooperate and that his statements would not be used against him in a criminal proceeding. Rosenberg described the bribery scheme between RTSI and Bills. RTSI terminated Rosenberg’s employment.The Tribune reported that RTSI courted Bills with thousands of dollars in free trips. Rosenberg sued RTSI under the qui tam provision of the City’s False Claims Ordinance, alleging that RTSI engaged in bribery and other illegal activities to obtain a city contract. The city intervened, making additional claims. The court dismissed Rosenberg as relator. The remaining parties settled and moved for dismissal with prejudice. Rosenberg unsuccessfully sought an award of a relator’s share of the settlement and attorney’s fees for his lawyer’s contributions to the case. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that Rosenberg helped to perpetrate the fraud and referring to Rosenberg’s “audacity.” Rosenberg was neither the original source of the information nor was he a volunteer under the ordinance. View "Rosenberg v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc." on Justia Law