Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-19-01873/USCOURTS-ca7-19-01873-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued December 18, 2019

Decided January 22, 2020

Before

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, JR., Circuit Judge

No. 19‐1873

HELEN OVERTON,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

ANDREW SAUL,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 4:17‐cv‐04259‐SLD‐JEH

Sara Darrow,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Helen Overton applied for Social Security disability benefits based on a host of

impairments, eventually including chronic migraines. An administrative law judge

denied Overton’s application on the ground that, despite her many severe impairments

(not including migraines), she retained the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to

perform light work with some limitations. The district court upheld that decision. On

appeal, Overton winnows her arguments, contending only the ALJ failed to properly

consider the limiting effects of her migraines. Because the ALJ’s decision was supported

by substantial evidence, we affirm.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 19-1873 Document: 33 Filed: 01/22/2020 Pages: 5
No. 19‐1873    Page 2

I. Background

Overton applied for benefits in September 2011, claiming she was unable to work

as of June 2010 because of back, knee, and shoulder pain, bipolar disorder, and

depression—all of which she says were exacerbated by a car accident she was involved

in that month. On her initial application as well as her request for redetermination,

Overton did not list migraines among the conditions limiting her ability to work. Nor

did she add them as a limiting condition on the updated disability report she submitted

in May 2012. It was not until Overton filed a prehearing brief in December 2013 that she

argued her migraines were a limiting condition. There, she described two migraine‐

related doctor’s visits at which she received Botox injections and noted she experienced

marked improvement as a result.   

After applying the five‐step sequential analysis set forth in 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1520(a)(4), the ALJ denied Overton benefits. The ALJ determined that some of

Overton’s impairments were severe, but not her migraines, which were “well

controlled” by Botox. The ALJ also rejected as inconsistent with the medical record

Overton’s testimony that even with Botox she had two to three migraines per month.

Although the ALJ concluded that Overton could perform light work, he added

moderate limitations when her symptoms were “exacerbate[ed].” Relying on the

testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ also concluded that although Overton could

not perform her past work, there were jobs available in the national economy for

someone with her RFC.

When Overton appealed this decision to the Appeals Council, she did not raise

the ALJ’s assessment of her migraines as a reversible error. After the Council initially

denied review, Overton sought judicial review, and the parties stipulated in the district

court to a remand. The Appeals Council then identified a number of deficiencies in the

decision and directed the ALJ to reevaluate them; none specifically related to the ALJ’s

treatment of Overton’s migraines.

Before the second hearing, Overton listed 25 allegedly severe impairments, but

migraines were not among them. And although Overton provided additional records

documenting her complaints of migraines and any prescribed treatment, she never

submitted a medical opinion about the limiting effects of her migraines, nor did any

consulting or examining physician ascribe such limitations. At that hearing, Overton

testified her migraines had worsened since the last hearing and that, even with Botox

treatment, she now had 10 to 12 migraines per month. With Botox, she said her

migraines lasted two to three days; without it, they lasted three to four days. Overton

Case: 19-1873 Document: 33 Filed: 01/22/2020 Pages: 5
No. 19‐1873    Page 3

explained that during a migraine, she was unable to do anything and needed to avoid

light and noise.   

In a 58‐page decision, the ALJ denied benefits. Again, he found that Overton’s

migraines were not severe. Overton’s hearing testimony, the ALJ concluded, was

contradicted by her medical records, which suggested her headaches did not occur with

the frequency she now alleged, but rather were “generally well controlled with Botox

injections.” The ALJ noted Overton’s migraines were “more problematic” when she lost

insurance coverage for Botox treatment for 30 months, but he concluded that, even then,

her migraines did not cause work‐related limitations because she had “successfully

worked for years” with the longstanding condition. Overall, the ALJ found that

Overton’s RFC had not changed since the first hearing, and, relying on the vocational

expert’s earlier testimony, the ALJ concluded that there were still sufficient jobs in the

national economy that Overton could perform.   

The Appeals Council did not assume jurisdiction, and Overton again appealed to

the district court. A magistrate judge recommended affirming and, over Overton’s

objections, the district judge adopted the recommendation.   

II. Discussion

We will uphold an ALJ’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence.

See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 (2019). “Our review is

deferential: we will not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the

ALJ.” Summers v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 523, 526 (7th Cir. 2017). We will, however, “examine

the ALJ’s decision to determine whether it reflects a logical bridge from the evidence to

the conclusions” that allows us to sufficiently “assess the validity of the agency’s

ultimate findings and afford [the claimant] meaningful judicial review.” Moore v. Colvin,

743 F.3d 1118, 1121 (7th Cir. 2014). Overton contends the ALJ did not build a “logical

bridge” between his recitation of her medical record and his conclusion she did not

suffer any work‐related limitations from her migraines, both when she had coverage for

Botox treatment and when she did not.1 We disagree.

Although the record contained numerous opinions regarding Overton’s

functional capacity, none identified any migraine‐related limitations. And there is no

objective measure for migraine symptoms, Moore, 743 F.3d at 1124, so the ALJ could

only determine the limiting effects of Overton’s migraines by assessing her credibility.

                                                 

1 Overton does not challenge the ALJ’s finding that her migraines were not severe.

Case: 19-1873 Document: 33 Filed: 01/22/2020 Pages: 5
No. 19‐1873    Page 4

The facts for the ALJ to consider were Overton’s subjective statements to her doctors

and at the administrative hearings about the frequency and severity of her migraine‐

related symptoms. Such statements are always subject to the ALJ’s credibility

assessment in light of the record. See Mitze v. Colvin, 782 F.3d 879, 881–82 (7th Cir. 2015)

(where doctor merely recounts claimant’s subjective reports of pain, ALJ must discern

whether claimant exaggerated).   

“We may disturb the ALJ’s credibility finding only if it is ‘patently wrong.’”

Burmester v. Berryhill, 920 F.3d 507, 510 (7th Cir. 2019). Because the ALJ cited specific

reasons from the record for discounting Overton’s reports of disabling migraines, that

standard is not met here. See id. In particular, the ALJ relied on inconsistencies as to

(1) the effectiveness of Botox injections at controlling Overton’s migraines, and (2) the

impact of her migraine‐related symptoms on her daily life and ability to work.

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (directing ALJs to consider inconsistencies when making

credibility determinations).

First, the ALJ pointed to discrepancies in Overton’s statements about the

effectiveness of Botox. At both hearings, Overton downplayed that treatment. In

December 2013, she claimed even with Botox she endured two or three migraines per

month, each lasting one to three days. In March 2017, she testified Botox was even less

effective; she said she now had migraines 10 to 12 times per month for two or three

days at a time. Yet, after Overton resumed Botox treatment in June 2016, the next month

she told her treating medical provider the treatment “significantly helped her migraine

symptoms,” and in August 2016 she said her “headaches [were] significantly better.” By

October 2016, this same provider recorded that Overton’s headaches were “quiescent on

her current medications.” And just two months before the second hearing, Overton

reported to a physician her migraines were “improved” and “Botox is working.”

Further, she sought almost no medical treatment for her migraines in the year

preceding the first hearing, having told her neurologist that, with Botox, she had only

three migraines every four months. Given this record, it was not patently wrong for the

ALJ to discount Overton’s hearing testimony and instead credit her consistent

statements to her providers in concluding that her migraines were “well controlled”

with Botox. See Burmester, 920 F.3d at 510.

Second, the ALJ identified facts that cast doubt on the alleged severity of

Overton’s migraines and their impact on her daily life. As the ALJ noted, Overton

depicted herself “as not capable of doing much of anything.” But Overton told her

treating medical provider she walked three miles each day for exercise, something the

Case: 19-1873 Document: 33 Filed: 01/22/2020 Pages: 5
No. 19‐1873    Page 5

ALJ reasonably deemed inconsistent with her hearing testimony. Further, Overton’s

migraines were not a new impairment: the condition began in 1995, with virtually the

same symptoms over time, except when their frequency decreased after she started

Botox treatments in late 2009. Between 1995 and her car accident in 2010, however,

Overton performed substantial work. See Eichstadt v. Astrue, 534 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir.

2008) (conditions with which a claimant was able to sustain substantial employment do

not support disability claim).   

Overton contends her work history is irrelevant because she testified her overall

condition has worsened over time. But, as discussed above, the ALJ did not find her

testimony on this point credible because it was inconsistent with the record. Cf. Moon

v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 718, 722 (7th Cir. 2014) (ALJ improperly relied on claimant’s work

history because he did not explain why he discredited her testimony that her condition

worsened over time). To the extent Overton alludes to a connection between her

migraines and her other conditions, she has not developed an argument the ALJ

overlooked medical evidence that her other conditions exacerbated her migraines,

either as to severity or frequency. See Krell v. Saul, 931 F.3d 582, 586 n.1 (7th Cir. 2019)

(underdeveloped arguments are waived). Moreover, Overton’s RFC accounts for the

combination of her impairments.   

Overton also presses that, at the very least, her migraine condition was

significantly worse during the 30‐month period she went without Botox treatment after

she lost her health insurance. During that time period, Overton argues, she consistently

told her psychiatrist migraines had “taken over her life,” and in a journal she kept at her

neurologist’s request during that period she logged experiencing twenty‐five days of

headaches in one month. Yet, the record also shows Overton told her treating medical

provider her headaches were stable, though still bothersome, and Sudafed and Claritin

provided her partial relief when she was without Botox. And Overton did not provide

any evidence that, when she lacked insurance, her migraines were worse than before

she was first prescribed Botox in 2009, during which time she performed substantial

work in spite of her longstanding migraine condition. Given all of this, the ALJ

reasonably concluded Overton’s ability to work was not limited by migraines even

when she lacked insurance coverage for Botox. Overton essentially asks us to reweigh

the conflicting evidence about this period and come to a different conclusion, which we

cannot do. McKinzey v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 884, 889 (7th Cir. 2011). Because the ALJ’s

decision was supported by substantial evidence, the district court’s decision is

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-1873 Document: 33 Filed: 01/22/2020 Pages: 5