Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01968/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01968-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

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

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Argued November 15, 2016 

Decided December 14, 2016 

Before 

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge 

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge 

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 16-1968 

JOSEPH G. HUGHES, III, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. 

No. 2:14-cv-01525-NJ 

Nancy Joseph, 

Magistrate Judge. 

O R D E R 

Joseph Hughes, a 41-year-old who suffers from inflammation and stiffness 

primarily in his neck and back, appeals the district court’s judgment upholding the 

denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. An administrative law judge 

found that, despite his impairments, Hughes retained the residual functional capacity to 

perform his past relevant work as a retail-store manager and furniture salesman. 

Hughes challenges the adequacy of this RFC finding. Because substantial evidence 

supports the ALJ’s decision, we affirm the judgment. 

Case: 16-1968 Document: 24 Filed: 12/14/2016 Pages: 8
No. 16-1968 Page 2 

 In 2011 Hughes applied for disability insurance benefits based on his ankylosing 

spondylitis, an inflammatory disease in his back and neck that, he said, rendered him 

unable to work. Hughes submitted a disability report to the Social Security 

Administration that detailed his past employment. Hughes, a high school graduate, 

previously worked as a furniture salesman, a mechanic, a car salesman, an automotiveservice advisor, and most recently a manager at a flower shop that closed in 2009. 

Hughes’s recorded medical history dates back to 2006, when x-rays showed bone 

fusion in his lower cervical and lumbar spines, the complete fusion of joints in his 

pelvis, and the narrowing of the joint areas in his hips. In 2010 Hughes’s 

rheumatologist, Dr. Miriam Cohen, noted that an x-ray showed “no significant change” 

in his condition, though she documented his poor spine flexibility. This latter finding 

was corroborated by Hughes’s treating physician, Dr. Bruce Camilleri, who determined 

that Hughes’s neck was “almost frozen.” Dr. Cohen also reported that Hughes said his 

fatigue was “usual and not bad” and that Hughes had some pain for which he took 

ibuprofen after previously taking Enbrel, an anti-inflammatory prescription drug. 

 At Hughes’s medical appointments in 2011, doctors noted a decline in Hughes’s 

posture. At his first appointment, Dr. Cohen concluded that Hughes’s “hangdog” 

stance—his neck and core stooped forward—had become more severe but that he was 

“otherwise stable considering his fused spine.” Hughes complained of fatigue and 

stiffness, so Dr. Cohen recommended that he again take Enbrel and start physical 

therapy. Later in 2011 Hughes had a consultative examination with Dr. Abdul Hafeez, 

who reported that Hughes had “no limitation in [his] upper extremity” but “walk[ed] 

like an old person bent over slightly.” Dr. Hafeez further noted that Hughes could 

move his neck 10 degrees to the left and 20 degrees to the right and that he had to push 

his eyes upward to look ahead. At Hughes’s third appointment in 2011, Dr. George 

Walcott, a state-agency physician, concluded that Hughes retained sufficient physical 

capabilities to perform light work. Dr. Walcott determined that Hughes was capable of 

occasionally lifting 20 pounds, frequently lifting 10 pounds, and “stand[ing] [sitting,] or 

walk[ing] with normal breaks for a total of about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday.” 

Another state-agency physician, Dr. Pat Chan, evaluated Hughes in 2012 and 

downgraded Hughes’s functional capacities because of his fatigue and pain. Dr. Chan 

determined that Hughes could occasionally lift 10 pounds and frequently lift less than 

10 pounds. Dr. Chan also concluded that Hughes could stand or work for at least two 

hours and could sit for about six hours in an eight-hour workday. And Dr. Chan 

Case: 16-1968 Document: 24 Filed: 12/14/2016 Pages: 8
No. 16-1968 Page 3 

determined that Hughes should never perform work that involved ladders, ropes, or 

scaffolds, or exposed him to hazardous machinery. 

Dr. Cohen did not find significant change in Hughes’s condition in 2012. At his 

first appointment, Dr. Cohen documented that Hughes’s pain had lessened and his 

ankylosing spondylitis was “mildly active.” Dr. Cohen also discussed Hughes’s fatigue 

with him and suggested that it could be caused by arthritis or by neck pain disrupting 

his sleep. At Hughes’s next appointment, Dr. Cohen determined that Hughes had 

experienced “little change of his severe and chronic axial disease except for some 

decrease in spine measurements.” She remarked that his “severe limitation in axial 

mobility is not likely to reverse or significantly improve” and suggested that he 

consider receiving Remicade infusions, which reduce swelling and inflammation. 

 Dr. Cohen sent the Social Security Administration a letter in support of Hughes’s 

disability claim in February 2012. She said that Hughes’s ankylosing spondylitis 

“significantly affected his entire spine” by giving him “minimal mobility at his neck, 

thoracic, and lumbar spines.” Dr. Cohen also wrote that Hughes had limited peripheral 

vision because of his restricted neck movement and asked that his “severe and 

longstanding spine deformities” be deemed “disabling.” 

At Hughes’s request, Dr. Julian Freeman, specializing in internal medicine, 

confirmed Hughes’s ankylosing spondylitis diagnosis “without complete fusion of the 

spine at positions of highly unfavorable angulation.” Because of Hughes’s 

inflammation, Dr. Freeman opined that Hughes should be limited to two hours of 

standing or walking per day in five-minute intervals, six hours of sitting, and 

“extremely rare . . . bending, crouching, stooping, . . . [and] climbing.” Dr. Freeman also 

found that Hughes could move his limbs only very slowly and that his neck had a range 

of motion that was one-fifth that of most persons. But Dr. Freeman said that it was 

“unclear” whether Hughes’s ailments met the Commissioner’s criteria for 

inflammatory-arthritis disability. 

At Hughes’s appointment with Dr. Cohen in 2013, she concluded that his 

ankylosing spondylitis was “nearly end-stage . . . with persistent, moderately severe 

disease activity—increased, severe loss of mobility at [the cervical] spine and some 

peripheral arthritis.” Hughes reported that he felt greater pain in his neck and back. 

Dr. Cohen again noted that he had a hangdog bend in his neck and recommended that 

Hughes receive Remicade infusions and perform physical therapy. 

Case: 16-1968 Document: 24 Filed: 12/14/2016 Pages: 8
No. 16-1968 Page 4 

At his hearing before an administrative law judge in 2013, Hughes commented 

on his physical capabilities and job search after the flower shop closed in 2009. He said 

that he received unemployment compensation for the year following the shop’s closing. 

He explained the timing of his application in 2011 for disability insurance benefits by 

remarking that he concluded then that employers would not hire him because he 

“would walk in and . . . was hunched over [and] they were, like this [is] not really 

someone we want to work with.” While at home Hughes said that he could complete 

“light-duty” chores and could lift 50 pounds but would need to take breaks of ten to 

fifteen minutes. He also said that he could walk or stand for about two hours before 

becoming stiff and that he could sit, walk, or stand for about four to six hours per day. 

If he sat for two hours, Hughes said that he needed to walk for roughly 15 minutes 

before sitting down again. He also said that he must take at least one 15-minute nap 

each day. As a final matter, Hughes said that he did not have enough money to pay the 

co-pays for Enbrel or physical therapy recommended by Dr. Cohen. 

The ALJ asked the vocational expert to consider the possible employment 

opportunities for a person of Hughes’s age, education, and work experience who could 

not climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and must avoid heights and the use of moving 

machinery. The ALJ added that this person could only occasionally crouch, use 

peripheral vision and climb stairs, could not experience extreme cold, wetness, or 

humidity, and could use frequently his right upper extremity. The vocational expert 

said that this person could work as a furniture salesman, a retail manager, or as an 

office, shipping, stock, or information clerk. The ALJ then questioned what jobs would 

be available for a person with these restrictions who also “needs to be able to sit 

alternatively at will provided that they’re not off task more than 10 percent of the work 

period.” The vocational expert said that this person could perform Hughes’s prior work 

selling furniture and managing retail. 

The ALJ applied the five-step analysis in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4), and found 

Hughes not disabled. The ALJ determined that he had not engaged in substantial 

gainful activity since the alleged onset date of May 23, 2011 (step one); that his 

ankylosing spondylitis was a severe impairment (step two); that this impairment did 

not equal a listed impairment (step three); that he had the residual functional capacity 

to perform light work, with the limitations of standing or sitting at his discretion as long 

as he was working 90% of the time, only occasionally reaching overhead, using his 

peripheral vision, crouching, and climbing stairs, and never climbing ladders, ropes, or 

scaffolds or being exposed to extreme cold or humidity; and that he could perform both 

Case: 16-1968 Document: 24 Filed: 12/14/2016 Pages: 8
No. 16-1968 Page 5 

of his past jobs as a retail manager and furniture salesman as well as other unspecified 

jobs (step four). 

In determining Hughes’s RFC, the ALJ found his testimony about the severity of 

his impairments “not entirely credible.” The ALJ noted that Hughes used only nonprescription drugs to control his pain, had “good retained function,” and engaged in “a 

good range of activities of daily living, suggesting his condition is not as disabling as 

alleged.” Moreover, the ALJ explained that Hughes’s employment and “work-related 

activities” show that he has the ability to work. 

The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision 

of the Commissioner. See Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 2015). 

A magistrate judge, presiding by consent, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), affirmed the 

ALJ’s decision. In the magistrate judge’s view, the ALJ reasonably rejected Dr. Chan’s 

suggestion that Hughes’s fatigue limited him to sedentary work because he was able to 

perform a moderate amount of daily activity and the record does not contain evidence 

that Hughes’s fatigue increased after he worked at the flower shop. The magistrate 

judge also concluded that the step-four limitations specified by the ALJ sufficiently 

accounted for Hughes’s physical limitations and need for rest. The magistrate judge 

finally upheld the ALJ’s finding that Hughes had “good retained function” because his 

motor skills were not impaired and his condition did not significantly change since he 

stopped working. 

 Hughes contends that the ALJ erred by not evaluating objective medical 

evidence of his symptoms before considering the credibility of his allegations regarding 

his symptoms. Federal regulations define objective medical evidence to mean “medical 

signs and laboratory findings,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(b)(1)(i), and “evidence from the 

application of medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Id.

§ 404.1529(c)(2). According to Hughes, the ALJ disregarded objective medical evidence 

of his condition and focused instead on his “medical history, opinions, and statements 

about treatment.” He asserts that even if the ALJ concluded that the objective medical 

evidence did not support Hughes’s allegations, the ALJ did not justify his conclusion. 

 

But Hughes is mistaken in contending that the ALJ did not consider the relevant 

medical evidence of Hughes’s condition. The ALJ scrutinized the evidence 

documenting the progression of his ankylosing spondylitis, including a series of 

measurements showing deterioration in his posture. In discussing the progression of 

Case: 16-1968 Document: 24 Filed: 12/14/2016 Pages: 8
No. 16-1968 Page 6 

Hughes’s condition, the ALJ explicitly referred to multiple x-rays of his lower back, 

neck, and hips. As a final matter, the ALJ addressed Hughes’s relative mobility by citing 

medical examination results and concluding that he had a “good range of motion in his 

knees.” 

Hughes also contends that for three separate reasons, substantial evidence does 

not support the ALJ’s adverse credibility finding regarding the “intensity, persistence 

and limiting effects of [Hughes’s] symptoms.” See Curvin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 645, 648 

(7th Cir. 2015). Hughes first argues that the ALJ improperly inferred that his active job 

search between 2009 and 2011, his receipt of unemployment benefits, and his past work 

while having ankylosing spondylitis suggest that he could work and that he believed he 

could work. Since working at the flower shop, he says, his ankylosing spondylitis has 

worsened. He contends that this deterioration explains his inability to work now 

despite working between 2001 and 2009 with this condition. He maintains that his job 

search between 2009 and 2011 was a “testament to his character” and showed only that 

he wanted to work, not that he could work, as did his receipt of unemployment 

benefits. 

But the ALJ did not improperly interpret these facts in discrediting Hughes’s 

claims of his symptoms’ severity. In applying for unemployment benefits in 2009, 

Hughes represented to Wisconsin authorities that he was “ready, willing, and able to 

work.” See Schmidt v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 737, 746 (7th Cir. 2005) (“[W]e are not convinced 

that a Social Security claimant’s decision to . . . represent to state authorities . . . that he 

is able and willing to work should play absolutely no role in assessing his subjective 

complaints of disability.”) See also Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685, 699 (7th Cir. 2014). In 

addition, Hughes’s explanation for the timing of his disability application—that he 

concluded in 2011 that employers would not want to hire him because of his hunchedover appearance—suggests that he could not find work, not that he could not perform

work. See Schmidt, 395 F.3d at 745 (finding it reasonable that an ALJ interpreted a 

disability applicant leaving the workforce because he was laid off, not “an inability to 

perform,” as supporting the conclusion that he did not have a disability). 

Further, we defer to the ALJ’s conclusion that Hughes’s work-related activities 

after his last job suggest that he can work because reasonable persons could disagree 

about the severity of his condition since 2009. See Schmidt, 395 F.3d at 745. Dr. Camilleri 

determined in 2010 that Hughes’s posture had worsened since 2007. Dr. Cohen 

confirmed this finding in Hughes’s 2011 evaluation and noted that Hughes’s hand 

stiffness and foot pain from walking had increased since his 2010 appointment. 

Case: 16-1968 Document: 24 Filed: 12/14/2016 Pages: 8
No. 16-1968 Page 7 

Dr. Cohen further documented in 2013 that Hughes’s back and neck pain had 

intensified and that he had lost mobility in his neck. But Dr. Cohen also concluded 

based on a 2010 x-ray that Hughes experienced no “significant change” in his medical 

condition from 2006 and that he had “minimal disease activity” as of 2011 and “little 

change of his severe and chronic axial disease” as of 2012. 

Hughes’s second challenge to the ALJ’s credibility determination is that the ALJ 

wrongly inferred from his testimony of his daily activities that he could work 40 hours 

per week. Although we have “urged caution in equating [daily] activities with the 

challenges of daily employment in a competitive environment,” Beardsley v. Colvin, 

758 F.3d 834, 838 (7th Cir. 2014), the ALJ’s RFC assessment accounted for Hughes’s need 

for breaks and his physical limitations. The RFC assessment addressed Hughes’s need 

to take a 15-minute nap by allowing him to be “off task” up to 10 percent of work time 

and to alternatively sit and stand as necessary to address his stiffness from staying in a 

particular position for a prolonged period. 

Moreover, the ALJ did not improperly discount Hughes’s fatigue because 

Hughes’s own statements and those of his doctors undercut the credibility of his claim 

that he cannot work 40 hours per week. Hughes said in his disability application in 2011 

that he did not take naps during the day and told Dr. Chan in 2012 that his fatigue was 

“mild.” Hughes asserts, without citations to the record, that his fatigue increased 

between 2011 and 2013. The record shows that Hughes reported fatigue to Dr. Cohen in 

2012, though she did not assess his fatigue as debilitating. We would expect that 

Hughes’s doctors would document increases in Hughes’s fatigue, but it went 

unmentioned in Dr. Freeman’s report in 2012, Dr. Cohen’s 2012 letter to the Social 

Security Administration, and Dr. Cohen’s written evaluation in 2013. 

 

Third, Hughes argues that the ALJ wrongly discredited his complaints of pain by 

not addressing his reasons for taking ibuprofen rather than prescription pain killers. 

Hughes explained at the hearing that he could not afford the co-pays for prescribed 

pain killers after losing his job and that he had trouble sleeping after taking them. But 

the ALJ’s adverse credibility finding was not “patently wrong,” Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 

408, 413–14 (7th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted), given the lack of evidence of a significant 

decline in Hughes’s condition since he last worked and the fact that he applied for 

benefits only after concluding that he could not find work. The ALJ’s error in 

disregarding Hughes’s reasons for not taking prescription pain killers was harmless 

because the ALJ explained his credibility assessment with reasons supported by the 

record and remanding to correct the ALJ’s error would not change this case’s outcome.

Case: 16-1968 Document: 24 Filed: 12/14/2016 Pages: 8
No. 16-1968 Page 8 

See Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 367 (7th Cir. 2013); Roundy’s Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 674 F.3d 

638, 648–49 (7th Cir. 2012). 

We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment. 

Case: 16-1968 Document: 24 Filed: 12/14/2016 Pages: 8