Green v. Saul
| Decision Date | 23 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-1192,19-1192 |
| Parties | HOLLY DENISE GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
Before MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.
Holly Green applied for Disability Insurance Benefits based on numerous conditions, including knee pain, fibromyalgia, neck and back pain, obesity, and anxiety. An administrative law judge denied benefits, finding that Green could do sedentary work with certain limitations. After the district court upheld this denial, Green appealed, arguing that the ALJ wrongly made an adverse credibility finding against her, improperly weighed the evidence, and did not adequately consider her sleep problems and neck pain. But the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence and properly accounted for Green's limitations, so we affirm.
Green was 42 years old when she applied for benefits, asserting an onset date of December 2012. She has an associate degree in applied science and technology and has worked previously as a cook, welder, and in multiple positions in quality assurance. She is often in pain because she suffers from fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease, migraines, obesity, and arthritis in her left knee and shoulder. She treats her pain with medication, including opioids like hydrocodone, and has received multiple nerve-blocking injections in her neck. In 2013, she had surgery on her right knee to treat a torn meniscus.
Doctors have also diagnosed Green with insomnia, sleep apnea, anxiety, and depression. For these conditions, Green takes Ambien, Prozac, and Xanax. Dr. Dan Boen, a consulting psychologist who performed a mental-status evaluation in connection with her disability claim, assigned her a Global Assessment of Function ("GAF") score of 45, indicating that she had serious impairments in social and occupational functioning.1 AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS'N, DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS 32 (4th ed. 1994). Dr. Boen also opined that Green
State-agency consulting psychologist Dr. Ken Lovko reviewed Green's records and determined that Dr. Boen's opinion was "not supported by exam" or daily-life activities. He opined that she could "understand, remember and carry-out semiskilled tasks" and "attend to task[s] for sufficient periods of time to complete" them. Green's internist, Dr. Vijay Kamineni, noted that she had "[n]ormal concentration and social interaction," and her "[r]emote and recent memory" was "intact."
After the Social Security Administration denied Green's application, she had a hearing before an ALJ. She testified that she was unable to work primarily due to her left knee pain, fibromyalgia, and neck problems. Green said she that she is in debilitating pain about half the time and that on "bad days" she lies down and tries not to move. She also testified that she could stand only 15 to 20 minutes at a time. She toldthe ALJ that a recent MRI showed "bulging disc[s]" in her neck and back. Neck pain causes her "difficulty looking side-to-side," "looking just slightly down at a computer screen or a table," and "holding something and reading." She suffers from social anxiety as well—she said she cannot handle being in a room with more than ten unfamiliar people. She also reported that some days she "just can't ... think straight."
When discussing her daily routine, Green said that she reads the newspaper (though she usually lies down after she finishes it), watches half-hour television programs, and goes on Facebook every couple of days. She also enjoys fishing, though she has not gone for over six months. She can take care of her own hygiene, and although her daughter usually helps her with the cooking, Green said she does a few household chores, like dusting, grocery shopping, and folding laundry. Because she does not sleep well, Green testified that she takes "about a two hour nap" every day.
The ALJ consulted a vocational expert (VE) about whether a person with Green's functional limitations could find work in the national economy. In his first hypothetical, the ALJ asked about an individual of Green's age, education, and work history, "reduced to sedentary work" with the following limitations: never lifting more than ten pounds; sitting six hours of the work day; limited to "simple repetitive tasks," with "no sudden or unpredictable workplace changes," no "tasks requiring intense or focused attention for prolonged periods," and the ability to "work at a flexible pace where the employee is allowed some independence in determining either the timing of different work activities or pace of work." The expert said that such a person could work as an order clerk, change account clerk, or call-out operator. Next, the ALJ added the limitation of needing to alternate "between sitting and standing up to every 30 minutes," and the VE responded that the same jobs would be available.
After the hearing, Green provided additional evidence regarding her cervical spine issues and sleep apnea. This included the analysis of the 2015 MRI mentioned in Green's testimony; it showed "[d]egenerative disc changes with" two small central disc protrusions. Doctors also recorded that Green's "bilateral neck pain and spasms have been getting worse" and that she had "difficulty in turning her head."
The ALJ then conducted the Administration's five-step analysis, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a), § 416.920(a). At Step 1, he determined that Green had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since December 4, 2012. At Step 2, he identified Green's severe impairments as fibromyalgia, bilateral knee pain due to osteoarthritis and a meniscal tear requiring surgery, neck (and related headache) pain and low back pain due to cervical and lumbar degenerative arthritis, rosacea, obesity, depression, and anxiety. At Step 3, the ALJ concluded that these severe impairments did not meet any listings for presumptive disability. Further, the ALJ determined, Green's "medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms," but her "statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely credible."
Between Steps 3 and 4 the ALJ determined that Green had the Residual Functioning Capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work with the limitations he had included in his hypothetical questions to the VE. Though the ALJ determined that Green's limitations precluded her from performing her past relevant work (Step 4), at Step 5 he relied upon the VE's testimony and concluded that with her RFC, Green could successfully find other work.
The agency's Appeals Council denied Green's request for review. She then sought judicial review, and the parties agreed to have a magistrate judge adjudicate the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge upheld the ALJ's decision.
"An ALJ's decision will be upheld if supported by 'substantial evidence,' which means 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Jozefyk v. Berryhill, 923 F.3d 492, 496 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118, 1120-21 (7th Cir. 2014)).
Green first challenges the ALJ's credibility determination because, she says, the assessment rests on an incomplete review of her daily activities, misinterprets her response to treatment, and is not supported by the medical evidence. Specifically, she argues that the ALJ illogically found that "her activities of daily living show that she is functioning at a higher degree than she reported," and that the ALJ did not consider the daily assistance that she receives from her family. We must determine whether the ALJ's credibility finding was supported by the record, recognizing that an ALJ's credibility determination is entitled to "special deference." Scheck v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697, 703 (7th Cir. 2004).
Here, the record supports the ALJ's credibility determination. ALJs are tasked with reviewing the evidence provided and assessing whether a claimant is exaggerating the effects of her impairments, and reviewing daily-living activities is an important part of that evaluation. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Alvarado v. Colvin, 836 F.3d 744, 750 (7th Cir. 2016); Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 369 (7th Cir. 2013) (). Here, there is no evidence that the ALJ overstated Green's ability to perform daily activities. He noted that Green was able to do only some household chores (help prepare meals, fold laundry, and grocery shop). He then evaluated Green's daily activities against her asserted impairments and found that she overstated the intensity of her symptoms. Her engagement in these activities showed that, with some limitations, she could do some work. See Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500, 505 (7th Cir. 2004); Powers v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 431, 435 (7th Cir. 2000). And though it is true that ALJs should not equate activities of daily living with an ability to engage in full-time work, see, e.g., Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640, 647 (7th Cir. 2012), there is no evidence that the ALJ did so here. Rather, he used what he heard from Green—that she cannot be active, that she needs to alternate between sitting and standing, and that she cannot lift heavy items (like laundry)—to tailor an RFC that fit her limitations,...
To continue reading
Request your trial