Murphy v. Colvin

• Decision Date: 10 October 2014
• Docket Number: No. 13–3154.,13–3154.
• Citation: 759 F.3d 811
• Parties: Karen MURPHY, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

759 F.3d 811

Karen MURPHY, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 13–3154.

United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.

Argued May 19, 2014.

Decided July 22, 2014.

Amended Aug. 20, 2014.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 2014.

John Edward Horn, Tinley Park, IL, for Karen Murphy.

Jeffrey M. Hansen, Office of the United States Attorney, Linda M. Januszyk, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Region V, Chicago, IL, for Carolyn W. Colvin.

Before ROVNER, WILLIAMS, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

Karen Murphy claims that as a result of a stroke she has impairments so severe that she has not been able to return to her job as a secretary or work in another capacity. She applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), but the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied her application finding that she was not disabled. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) also agreed with the SSA.

On appeal, Murphy argues the ALJ's credibility determination was flawed because it was not supported by substantial evidence, and we agree. The ALJ erred by not questioning Murphy further about her failure to fully comply with her home exercise program and the activities she participated in while on vacation. Murphy also asserts, and we agree, that the ALJ's residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment was flawed because it did not take into account Murphy's potential inability to do light work. Finally, Murphy argues that the ALJ inappropriately used the medical-vocational grids (“grids”) to find her capable of working and we agree because the ALJ erroneously excluded from the RFC assessment information that should have been included. So we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

Karen Murphy was hospitalized after having a stroke on April 13, 2007. Before leaving the hospital, Murphy was examined by Dr. Joseph Mayer, who noted her past history of headaches and her diminished fluency in speech. Dr. Mayer noted that although Murphy could read a simple sentence, at times she substituted unintended words or phrases. He also noted that she had mild weakness on her right side, and a loss of sensation and proprioception (the ability to sense where her hand was in relation to her body without looking at it) in her right arm. Dr. Mayer recommended that Murphy see a physical therapist to help her rehabilitate.

Ten days after her stroke, Murphy started seeing a physical therapist who recommended a home exercise program to aid her rehabilitation, but instead of completing her physical therapy, she only attended two out of the four therapy sessions prescribed. The therapist recommended that Murphy be discharged from the program based on her attendance. It is unclear when Murphy returned to physical therapy, but on June 13, 2007, the same physical therapist wrote that Murphy had undergone seven weeks of physical therapy. Despite returning to the program, Murphy did not complete it and once again her therapist recommended that she be discharged from the program.

Dr. Mayer examined Murphy again less than two weeks after she was discharged from the hospital, at which time she complained that she felt light-headed, dizzy, and tired, and that she experienced occasional sharp pain in her right hand and spots in her left eye. At a follow-up visit on May 11, 2007, she stated that while her dizziness and light-headedness were gone, her headaches remained.

Two months after her stroke, Murphy met with Dr. Mayer who noted that her speech had improved, that her right foot was “essentially normal,” but that her proprioception in her right hand remained poor. At the end of July 2007, Murphy saw Melissa Schultz, Dr. Mayer's physician assistant, and reported pain on the right side of her head. She told Dr. Mayer's assistant that she had recently returned from vacation and did not notice the pain while she was away. She also reported continued numbness and discomfort in her right forearm. Upon examination, Schultz characterized the decreased sensation in Murphy's right arm and hand as “mild” and “improving.” Two months later, in September 2007, Dr. Mayer noted that Murphy reported that her left-sided headaches were better, but she experienced periodic numbness along the right side of her face that sometimes developed into headache pain. Dr. Mayer also noted that Murphy's speech had “significantly” improved. In April 2008, a year after her stroke, Murphy followed up with Dr. Mayer. He noted that Murphy still had difficulty speaking and “some significant loss of sensation.” He also noted that Murphy suffered from almost nightly headaches, but doubted that they were related to her stroke because she suffered from headaches before her stroke.

On September 29, 2008, Murphy applied for disability benefits, but her application was denied by the Commissioner of the SSA. A hearing was held by an ALJ at which Murphy, her husband, and a vocational expert (“VE”) testified. Murphy testified about how her physical abilities—which included difficulty making a fist with her right hand, buttoning her shirts or jackets, picking up coins, writing or typing, and distinguishing hot from cold—impaired her ability to work. She also testified that her daily activities included sweeping, dusting, making the beds, and preparing simple meals. Murphy's husband's testimony largely mirrored her testimony. The ALJ asked Murphy and her husband about the vacation they went on in July 2007, but they both said they did not remember going on vacation.

Vocational Expert Pamela Tucker was asked to talk about the type of jobs that someone with certain hypothetical limitations could perform. In response to hypothetical questions posed by the ALJ, the VE testified that there were no sedentary jobs in the regional economy for a person who could neither work with the general public nor use her hands more than occasionally for fine manipulation with the dominant hand. The ALJ asked a second set of hypothetical questions that described a person who had the capacity to do light, unskilled work, but who could only occasionally perform fine hand manipulation. The VE testified that there were a significant number of jobs in the economy that this person could perform. In evaluating Murphy's claim, the ALJ ruled that Murphy was not disabled because she had the RFC to perform the full range of light, unskilled work.

Murphy sought and obtained a review before the Appeals Council, which adopted the ALJ's decision. The ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied Murphy's request for review. She appealed the Council's decision to federal district court and the parties consented to a magistrate judge conducting the proceeding. Murphy sought review of the agency's decision challenging the ALJ's credibility determination, RFC determination, and application of the medical-vocational guidelines. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision that Murphy was not disabled and therefore was not entitled to disability insurance benefits. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

We review de novo the magistrate court's decision, and reverse an ALJ's determination only where it is not supported by substantial evidence, which means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 841 (7th Cir.2007) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971)). “We will not, however, reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ's.” Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 362 (7th Cir.2013). In reaching its decision, the ALJ “must build a logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion, but he need not provide a complete written evaluation of every piece of testimony and evidence.” Schmidt v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 737, 744 (7th Cir.2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

A. ALJ's Credibility Determination Patently Wrong

Murphy argues that the ALJ improperly analyzed the credibility of her and her husband when the judge impermissibly relied on oft-criticized boilerplate language and that the ALJ's credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence. ALJ credibility determinations are given deference because ALJs are in a special position to hear, see, and assess witnesses. Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306, 311 (7th Cir.2012). Therefore, we will only overturn the ALJ's credibility determination if it is patently wrong, which means that the decision lacks any explanation or support. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413–14 (7th Cir.2008). In drawing its conclusions, the ALJ must “explain her decision in such a way that allows us to determine whether she reached her decision in a rational manner, logically based on her specific findings and the evidence in the record.” McKinzey v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 884, 890 (7th Cir.2011).

In reaching her credibility determination, the ALJ used boilerplate language that stated:

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 that they are inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity assessment.

We have often criticized the inclusion of such boilerplate language as “meaningless” because the language fails to connect the conclusory statement with objective evidence in the record or explain what the ALJ relied on when making her determination. Pepper, 712 F.3d at 367. However, no matter how unhelpful the language is, simply because the ALJ “used boilerplate language does not automatically undermine or discredit the ALJ's ultimate conclusion if [she] otherwise points to information that...