Steele v. Barnhart

Decision Date21 May 2002
Docket NumberNo. 00-3407.,00-3407.
Citation290 F.3d 936
PartiesTerry STEELE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Barry A. Schultz (argued), Evanston, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James B. Geren (argued), Social Security Admin., Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and BAUER and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge.

Terry Steele, a former City of Chicago firefighter, applied for supplemental security income at the age of forty-five asserting that he could not work because of debilitating epileptic seizures and low back pain. An administrative law judge found Steele not disabled and denied benefits, and the Social Security Administration's appeals council declined review. Steele then commenced this action in the district court, which upheld the agency's decision, and Steele now appeals. Although our review of the Commissioner's decision is deferential, we hold that a remand is necessary because the ALJ misconstrued the medical evidence of Steele's epilepsy, inadequately explained why she discredited Steele's own testimony, and relied on incomplete vocational testimony.

Steele's documented medical problems began with a back injury and assumed larger proportions when Steele was later diagnosed with epilepsy and depression. Steele's first reported back problems occurred after a fall in 1991 that caused him to miss six months of work. Steele further aggravated his back in 1993, and pain and difficulty walking again forced him to miss work. Dr. Nasim Rana, an orthopedist who examined Steele in January 1994, observed decreased range of motion in Steele's lower back and also determined from x-rays that Steele had degenerative disk disease. Two months later, Steele was fighting a fire when he passed out from smoke inhalation, fell down a flight of stairs, and struck his head. After the fall Steele suffered an acute lumbar sprain along with chronic low back pain. Soon after, Steele also began to experience what his doctors described as "absences" — periods of incoherence marked by lapses in consciousness and occasional hallucinations — which Dr. Steven Brint, a neurologist, thought might be related to the fall.

The absences were diagnosed as epileptic seizures, and electroencephalograms (EEGs) performed in May confirmed that diagnosis by documenting "ictal rhythms" (electrical patterns in the brain that occur during a seizure). To treat the seizures, doctors prescribed anticonvulsant medication. Since placing Steele on the medication, Dr. Brint reported in November that the "spells have stopped and he feels much better." An EEG administered in November also revealed no evidence of clear ictal patterns, but the EEG did reflect a "slight neurophysiological disturbance" in the temporal areas of Steele's brain. After Dr. Brint examined Steele in April 1995, he stated in an epilepsy report that the seizures appeared "well controlled" on anticonvulsant medication. But in the same report, Dr. Brint notably went on to observe that Steele continued to have several seizures a month, despite taking the medication as prescribed.

By January 19, 1996, when Steele applied for benefits, the frequency of his seizures allegedly had increased. During an assessment of Steele's physical capacity to work conducted that April, for example, Dr. Julius Villaflor reported that Steele complained of "frequent" seizures and suggested that they might be better controlled if Steele followed up with his treating physician. According to Dr. Villaflor, Steele could lift up to sixty pounds and sit or stand (with breaks) for between six and eight hours a day, but his seizures prevented him from operating machinery, driving motorized vehicles, or working at heights. Dr. Rochelle Hawkins, a specialist in internal medicine, also examined Steele about two months later and prepared a report for the Illinois Department of Public Aid. According to Dr. Hawkins, Steele complained of daily seizures, though Dr. Hawkins also wrote that Steele "admits he is not compliant with medication or follow up."

After his epilepsy diagnosis, Steele became depressed and began attending individual psychotherapy sessions. In connection with his application for benefits, Steele underwent psychiatric and psychological evaluations, and both concluded that he had "depressive neurosis." According to Dr. J. Chen's psychiatric evaluation, Steele's depression would spoil his appetite, trigger insomnia, agitate him, and lead him to isolate himself. Although Steele's depression was not impairing, Dr. Thomas Low's psychological report further concluded that depression restricted Steele's daily activities and social functioning and also affected Steele's ability to timely complete tasks by interfering with his concentration, persistence, and pace.

At a hearing in August 1997, the ALJ received Steele's medical records (many of which we have not discussed because they are either duplicative or inconsequential) and heard testimony from Steele. He testified that he suffered from depression, had difficulty walking, and had trouble lifting heavy objects because of his back. Steele also testified that despite taking his medication, he continued to have seizures, typically twice a day and lasting five seconds. Steele added that two months earlier he had suffered a five-minute blackout, during which he fell and injured his hand. As recently as the morning of the hearing, Steele continued, he experienced a seizure that lasted five or more seconds.

The ALJ also arranged for a psychiatrist and a vocational expert to testify at the hearing. Based on Dr. Chen's evaluation, the psychiatrist opined that he did not think Steele's depression was impairing, and beyond that he lacked the expertise to evaluate Steele's neurological condition. The vocational expert concluded that a hypothetical person of Steele's age and vocational background — who could not operate equipment or work at heights and who required a daily fifteen-minute break (at an unspecified time) to recover from a seizure — could still work light and sedentary jobs as a security guard, cashier, interviewer, or housekeeper. But when asked to assume all of the functional limitations reported by Steele, the vocational expert could not suggest any available jobs.

The ALJ issued a decision denying Steele's application for benefits. In her decision the ALJ concluded that Steele's May EEG was "generally unremarkable," that his November EEG was "unremarkable," that Steele's seizures were controlled by medication, and that the seizures occurred only when Steele failed to follow prescribed treatment. The ALJ also determined that despite Steele's back problems, seizures, and depression, he did not have a conclusively disabling impairment and he retained the capacity for light work. After finding Steele's own testimony not credible to the extent it suggested he could not perform light work, the ALJ determined from the vocational expert's testimony that Steele could hold 15,000 jobs as a security guard and 2,000 jobs as a housekeeper. Engaging in the familiar five-step analysis used to evaluate disability claims, 20 C.F.R. § 416.920, the ALJ concluded that Steele (1) did not have a job, (2) had a severe impairment, (3) did not have an impairment or combination of impairments listed in the agency's regulations, (4) could not return to his job as a firefighter, (5) but could work a significant number of jobs as either a security guard or a housekeeper. Steele then appealed to the agency's appeals council and submitted another EEG taken in September 1998 that suggested ictal rhythms. But Steele's request for review was denied, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481.

We will uphold the Commissioner's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and is free of legal error. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Although this standard is generous, it is not entirely uncritical, Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 869 (7th Cir.2000), and where the Commissioner's decision lacks evidentiary support or is so poorly articulated as to prevent meaningful review, the case must be remanded. On appeal Steele advances three principal contentions: (1) the ALJ's findings at step three of the sequential evaluation process do not command the support of substantial evidence; (2) the ALJ insufficiently explained why she discredited Steele's own testimony; and (3) the ALJ's findings at step five of the sequential evaluation process were based on incomplete vocational testimony. We consider these arguments in turn.

At step three the ALJ needed to determine whether Steele was conclusively disabled based on one of the agency's listed impairments. One relevant provision is listing 11.03, which deals with "minor motor seizures." It provides for a disability finding where the applicant has documented seizures "occurring more frequently than once weekly in spite of at least 3 months of prescribed treatment." 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 11.03; see Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 512-13 & n. 10 (9th Cir.2001); Brown v. Apfel, 174 F.3d 59, 64 (2d Cir.1999); Flanery v. Chater, 112 F.3d 346, 349 (8th Cir.1997); Brown v. Bowen, 845 F.2d 1211, 1214 (3d Cir.1988). Although Steele's medical records plainly documented his history of seizures, the ALJ altogether failed to discuss, or even cite, listing 11.03. In at least two circuits, omitting a key listed impairment like listing 11.03 — coupled with the otherwise perfunctory analysis provided by the ALJ at step three — alone would require a remand. See Burnett v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d 112, 119-20 (3d Cir.2000); Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009 (10th Cir. 1996). The Eighth Circuit, on the other hand, has concluded that a cursory discussion at step three is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2263 cases
  • Smith v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • May 4, 2015
    ...weight to a treating physician's opinion, the ALJ must "rationally articulate the grounds for [his] decision." Steel v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2002). Here, the ALJ did not give controlling weight, or indicate an assigned weight for that matter, to Dr. Mohan's opinions because......
  • Dogan v. Astrue, Civil No. 2:09cv207.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • June 3, 2010
    ...and precluded. Stewart v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 679, 684 (7th Cir.2009); Getch v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 473, 481–82 (7th Cir.2008); Steele, 290 F.3d at 941; Golembiewski, 322 F.3d at 916. This court agrees with Dogan on this point. Finally, the Commissioner asserts that Dogan cited cases which are fa......
  • Jeannie M. v. Kijakazi
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • February 17, 2022
    ...rel. Brindisi v. Barnhart, 315 F.3d 783, 786 (7th Cir. 2002); Scott v. Barnhart, 297 F.3d 589, 595-96 (7th Cir. 2003); Steele v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936, 940 (7th Cir. 2002)). However, the ALJ need not “name and discuss every Listing in their written decisions, ” Wilder, 22 F.4th at 652, nor......
  • Demma v. Colvin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • July 30, 2014
    ...'an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to [his] conclusion.'" Driver, 2014 WL 1315312, at *19 (quoting Steele v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2002). For all of these reasons, the Court finds the ALJ's evaluation of Dr. Agha's opinion and the ALJ's determination that, abs......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 books & journal articles
  • Synopses of Briefs
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Issues Annotated. Vol. I - 2014 Preliminary Sections
    • August 2, 2014
    ...Astrue , 539 F.3d 473, 481-82 (7th Cir. 2008); Blakes ex rel. Wolfe v. Barnhart , 331 F.3d 565, 569 (7th Cir. 2003); Steele v. Barnhart , 290 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2002). Moreover, “the ALJ himself must connect the evidence to the conclusion through an >accurate and logical bridge.’” Berg......
  • Federal Court Review
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Social Security Disability Practice. Volume Two - 2014 Contents
    • August 12, 2014
    ..., 301 F.3d 441, 453 (6th Cir. 2002). Seventh Circuit: Golembiewski v. Barnhart , 322 F.3d 912, 916 (7th Cir. 2003); Steele v. Barnhart , 290 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2002); O’Connor v. Sullivan , 938 F.2d 70, 73 (7th Cir. 1991). Eighth Circuit: Banks v. Massanari, 258 F.3d 820, 824 (8th Cir.......
  • Issue Topics
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Collection - James' Best Materials. Volume 2
    • May 5, 2015
    ...F.3d 912, 916 (7th Cir. 2003), citing SEC v. Chenery Corp ., 318 U.S. 80, 93-95, 63 S.Ct. 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943); Steele v. Barnhart , 290 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2002); Pinto v. Massanari , 249 F.3d 840, 847-48 (9th Cir. 2001); Fargnoli v. Massanari , 247 F.3d 34, 44 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2001).......
  • Synopses of Briefs
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Bohr's Social Security Issues Annotated - Volume I
    • May 4, 2015
    ...Astrue , 539 F.3d 473, 481-82 (7th Cir. 2008); Blakes ex rel. Wolfe v. Barnhart , 331 F.3d 565, 569 (7th Cir. 2003); Steele v. Barnhart , 290 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2002). Moreover, “the ALJ himself must connect the evidence to the conclusion through an accurate and logical bridge.” Berger......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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