Moon v. Colvin

Decision Date24 October 2014
Docket NumberNo. 13–3636.,13–3636.
Citation763 F.3d 718
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
PartiesLatesha MOON, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant–Appellee.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Joseph S. Sellers, Spector & Lenz, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Joo Hui Kim, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Region V, Chicago, IL, for DefendantAppellee.

Before POSNER, EASTERBROOK, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.

An administrative law judge found in 2010 that Latesha Moon was not disabled and thus not entitled to Social Security disability benefits. The Appeals Council and the district court upheld the ALJ's decision. Moon argues in this appeal that the ALJ improperly discounted her evidence of chronic migraine headaches. We agree that the ALJ's treatment of the evidence related to her migraines was unreasonable and failed to build a logical bridge between the evidence and the decision denying benefits. We reverse the district court's judgment and remand this case to the agency for further consideration. Because Moon has been receiving Social Security disability benefits based on a later application, the only issue on remand will be whether she was disabled between August 2008 and the later date from which benefits have been paid.

Moon is a mother who was 26 years old at the time of her application. She has worked in the past as a cashier, bank teller, and certified nursing assistant. For years she has suffered from numerous documented health issues, including back and joint problems, mild sleep apnea, depression, and migraine headaches. Most of these problems are related to the fact that Moon is exceptionally obese: at a height of 5'5?, she weighs over 400 pounds, giving her a body mass index (BMI) of around 67. A BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 is considered normal, and a person is considered obese when his or her BMI reaches 30. See “About BMI for Adults,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http:// www. cdc. gov/ healthyweight/ assessing/ bmi/ adult_ bmi/ index. html) (visited Aug. 13, 2014).

In support of her application for disability benefits, Moon submitted extensive medical records. On the medical issue that is central to this appeal—her migraine headaches—the evidence showed that she was diagnosed as early as 2005 and that she saw doctors about her headaches many times over the years that followed. she was prescribed Amitryptyline and Zomig to treat her headaches in 2005, but she did not take these medications because she feared side effects. Later she was prescribed Imitrex and Motrin, both of which she was taking at the time of her May 2010 hearing before the ALJ.

At the hearing, Moon testified about the seriousness of her migraines, their effect on her activities, and their treatment. She explained that the headaches had become worse over the last two or three years than they had been in 2005. Over that period, she had headaches on most days, and her headaches could last up to three days. Often the pain would be so bad that she needed to lie down in the dark until it passed. She said she believed that the medications Motrin and Imitrex caused side effects but that she had “no choice” but to take them because of the severity of her pain.

In his written decision denying Moon's claim for benefits, the ALJ went through the standard five-step analysis for determining whether a person is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). He found at step one that Moon was no longer engaged in substantial gainful activity (i.e., was not working). At step two he found that her combination of impairments—specifically back problems, obesity, sleep apnea, and headaches—qualified as “severe,” meaning that her ability to perform work activities was significantly limited as a result of the impairments.

At step three the ALJ found that Moon's combination of impairments did not meet the criteria for an automatic finding of disability. (If durational requirements are satisfied, conditions listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, entitle a claimant to benefits without further analysis beyond step three.) As a result, the ALJ was required to determine Moon's “residual functional capacity” at step four.

Residual functional capacity is the extent to which a person can still work despite having health problems. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1). The ALJ found that Moon, though suffering from a severe combination of impairments, was still capable of doing sedentary work if she would be permitted to sit or stand at will. He found she could lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently and could also stoop occasionally, but should not climb ropes, ladders, or scaffolding. The ALJ based his assessmentlargely on the opinions of two doctors who had reviewed Moon's medical records but had not examined her. Dr. Young–Ja Kim, a state agency medical reviewer, provided a report. Dr. Anthony F. Francis, a medical expert, provided interrogatory answers that the ALJ described as being “in full agreement” with Dr. Kim's report.

On the specific issue of Moon's headaches, the ALJ did not explain in his decision how they influenced his determination of her residual functional capacity, but he implied that their role was minimal. He noted that the “alleged headaches” had begun in 2005, three years before Moon stopped working. He also pointed out that she had not taken the medications she was prescribed in 2005 and that a 2008 MRI of her head was “unremarkable,” showing “no cause for headaches.” Moreover, the ALJ explained, Moon had “denied backaches, headaches, and depression” at a visit to her doctor in March 2009. Regarding Moon's testimony about her headaches, the ALJ highlighted a perceived tension between her testimony that her current medications caused side effects and her medical records, which did not show that she had reported these side effects to her doctors.

Based on Moon's residual functional capacity, the ALJ found at step four that she was not capable of doing her past work. At step five, however, he found that Moon was not disabled because sedentary jobs with a sit/stand option exist in significant numbers. After the Appeals Council agreed with the ALJ's assessment, Moon sought judicial review in the district court, which also upheld the ALJ's decision.

Moon argues on appeal that the ALJ, in determining her residual functional capacity, did not sufficiently account for her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
581 cases
  • United States v. Jones
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • December 22, 2022
  • Murphy v. Berryhill
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • March 11, 2019
    ...Bacchus. Lambert v. Berryhill, 896 F.3d 768, 774 (7th Cir. 2018); Stage v. Colvin, 812 F.3d 1121, 1125 (7th Cir. 2016); Moon v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 718, 722 (7th Cir. 2014); Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672, 678 (7th Cir. 2009). Here, the ALJ identified a lack of evidence of muscle atrophy, defic......
  • Brynelson v. Berryhill
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • September 14, 2018
    ..., 766 F.3d 702, 705 (7th Cir. 2014) (chastising ALJ for making his own psychological assessment of the findings); Moon v. Colvin , 763 F.3d 718, 722 (7th Cir. 2014) ("ALJs are required to rely on expert opinions instead of determining the significance of particular medical findings themselv......
  • Barbara T. v. Saul
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • July 10, 2020
    ...764 F.3d 677, 680 (7th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff argues that the ALJ impermissibly evaluated the "B criteria" on her own. Moon v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 718, 722 (7th Cir. 2014) ("ALJs arerequired to rely on expert opinions instead of determining the significance of particular medical findings themse......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Case Index
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume I
    • May 4, 2015
    ...Astrue , 519 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008), 8th-08 McKinney v. Apfel , 228 F.3d 860 (8th Cir. Oct. 2, 2000), 8th-00 Moon v. Colvin , 763 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2014), 7th-14 Pfitzner v. Apfel , 169 F.3d 566 (8th Cir. Mar. 1, 1999), 8th-99 Roberts v. Apfel , 222 F.3d 466 (8th Cir. J......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume II
    • May 4, 2015
    ...Kan. April 26, 2004), 8th-09 Moomey v. Apfel , 3 F. Supp.2d 970 (C.D. Ill. 1998), §§ 202.4, 202.9, 204.8, 210.1, 210.6 Moon v. Colvin , 763 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2014), 7 th -14 Moore ex rel. Moore v. Barnhart, 413 F.3d 718 (8th Cir. July 5, 2005), 8th-05 Moore v. Apfel , 63 F. Supp.2......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT