Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01745/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01745-0/pdf.json

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

---

his carpal tunnel symptoms

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued November 16, 2016

Decided February 9, 2017

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 16-1745

DANIEL W. KEYS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NANCY BERRYHILL,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of 

Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.

No. 1:14-cv-250

Andrew P. Rodovich,

Magistrate Judge.

O R D E R

Daniel Keys challenges the denial of his application for disability insurance 

benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. Keys claimed 

disability based on a number of conditions—constant back and neck pain, migraine 

headaches, systemic rheumatoid arthritis, a rotator-cuff tear, sleep deprivation, and 

depression. Keys argues principally that the administrative law judge erred by giving too 

much weight to the opinions of non-examining doctors who did not review medical 

evidence that his back condition had deteriorated. The ALJ’s decision is supported by 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

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

Case: 16-1745 Document: 34 Filed: 02/09/2017 Pages: 6
No. 16-1745 Page 2

substantial evidence. Also, while no one contends that Keys can return to his past 

construction work, no treating or other physician offered an opinion to the effect that 

Keys suffered from any condition impairing him to a degree that would have rendered 

him completely disabled. We affirm.

In late 2011 Daniel Keys, then 46 years old, applied for disability benefits, claiming 

that for the past three years he had been unable to work because of constant back and 

neck pain from degenerative disc disease, migraines, systemic rheumatoid arthritis, rightknee pain, impulse-control disorder, and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. In 

the years before his condition worsened (1997-2007), Keys worked in road construction. 

From 2008 to 2011, he did some home-improvement and carpentry projects, though this 

work was intermittent because of his pain.

Keys’ back condition stems from an incident in 1998 when he was hit in the back 

with a backhoe’s loading bucket. In an effort to relieve his pain, he has undergone six 

back surgeries: a 2002 thoracic fusion; 2004 and 2008 lumbar spinal fusions; a 2010 

foramintonomy to relieve pressure on his spinal cord and 2010 diskectomies to replace 

two herniated discs; and a final September 2012 foramintonomy and diskectomy. 

Treatment notes show that his pain generally improved after surgery, only to 

return shortly afterward. He reported relief after the 2008 surgery but complained that 

his lower-back pain returned within a few months. His pain improved again after the 

2010 surgery, but a year later he had to see a pain physician regularly for lower-back and 

neck pain that radiated across his shoulders and left arm. He was treated with steroid 

injections and various medications in 2011 and 2012, but his pain persisted.

Several MRIs recorded the progression of his degenerative disc disease. In mid2010, a cervical MRI revealed central-canal stenosis and multilevel-foraminal stenosis.

Lumbar and cervical MRIs from mid-2011 show that his spine was generally within 

normal limits, though the lumbar MRI revealed mild narrowing of the central canal and 

neural foramina, and the cervical MRI showed mild left-neural foraminal stenosis but no 

sign of cord flattening. But MRIs in 2012 showed some changes: a cervical MRI in August

reflected two bulging discs, mild foraminal narrowing, and minimal central narrowing; 

a lumbar MRI in May 2012 revealed mild and minimal central narrowing, mild foraminal 

and lateral recess narrowing, with the L3-L4 disc and facet touching the descending nerve

roots.

Keys also experienced pain in his hands and joints that has been attributed to 

rheumatoid arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, a torn rotator cuff, and a torn ACL. His 

spine surgeon first observed signs of carpal tunnel in mid-2010 and recommended that 

he wear a brace. That condition continued to be present at doctor visits in April and 

Case: 16-1745 Document: 34 Filed: 02/09/2017 Pages: 6
No. 16-1745 Page 3

October 2011 as well as April 2012. In mid-2012, Keys’s general practitioner noted that he

wore a brace for right-wrist tenderness that Keys attributed to an “old injury.” 

Keys began showing signs of rheumatoid arthritis in late 2010 after two emergency 

room visits for multiple-joint pain and swelling in his left hand. In early 2011, his doctor 

described the swelling as “very severe.” Keys could not perform fine finger movements, 

remove his wedding ring, or “turn on his street when he was driving.” When Keys was 

diagnosed two months later with rheumatoid arthritis, his rheumatologist observed that

hip pain limited him to walking only 100 yards. 

Keys’s right-knee problems began after he suffered a near-complete tear of his 

ACL in 2008. He cancelled a surgery scheduled for late 2008 after a death occurred in his 

family. Keys used a brace for stability but the injury kept him in constant pain. He 

eventually had the surgery in 2011 and within three months that pain had “significantly 

improved.” 

Keys’s right-shoulder pain is his last remaining physical ailment. His torn rotator 

cuff was repaired in 2002, but in 2012 the shoulder was still tender and showed signs of 

tendinitis. 

Dr. B.T. Onamusi, a state-agency doctor, examined Keys in early 2012 and 

concluded that chronic pain and headaches limited him to “sedentary to light” activities.

He noted that Keys could sit for about five minutes, stand for fifteen, walk three blocks, 

and lift up to ten pounds. He also observed that Keys did not have trouble with gross or 

fine motor skills, including buttons or knots. Dr. Onamusi recorded that Keys’s grip 

strength was twenty-five pounds in his right hand and thirty-five pounds in his left. His 

final assessment was that Keys suffered from chronic neck and lower-back pain, multiplejoint pain probably related to rheumatoid arthritis, and recurrent migraine headaches.

Around that same time Dr. M. Brill, another state-agency doctor, reviewed Keys’s 

medical records without a physical exam and concluded that Keys could stand and sit 

for six hours in an eight-hour workday with occasional climbing, stooping, balancing, 

kneeling, crouching, and crawling, and had no upper extremity limitations apart from 

being able to frequently lift ten pounds and occasionally lift twenty pounds.

Dr. Candace L. Martin, an agency psychologist, evaluated Keys in early 2012. She

concluded that Keys did not show signs of clinical depression. Dr. Martin noted that

Keys’s constant pain made him feel depressed and irritable, and she diagnosed him with 

impulse-control disorder and adjustment disorder with depressed mood.

Case: 16-1745 Document: 34 Filed: 02/09/2017 Pages: 6
No. 16-1745 Page 4

Soon thereafter the agency denied Keys’s claims, and Keys requested 

reconsideration. Another agency non-examining doctor, Dr. J. Sands, concurred with Dr. 

Brill’s opinion, and the agency denied Keys’s claims again.

At a hearing before an ALJ in early 2013, Keys testified that pain severely limited 

his ability to walk, stand, and use his hands and arms. He said that most of his pain was 

in his lower back, making his legs go numb and tingle, and that standing, sitting, or 

walking too long aggravated his pain. He also stated that his hands tingled and went 

numb from neck pain, making it hard to hold things. He reiterated that he needed help 

with buttons and knots. 

The ALJ applied the required five-step analysis for assessing disability, 

see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4), and found that Keys was not disabled. The

ALJ determined that Keys had not engaged in substantial gainful employment since his 

alleged onset date in December 2008, despite his part-time work (step one); that his

conditions (“lumbar degenerative disc disease; spondylosis; bulging disc at C2-3 and C7-

T1; back and neck pain; rheumatoid arthritis; osteoarthritis of right knee, status postsurgery in 2011; rotator cuff tear”) were severe impairments (step two); that these did not 

equal a listed impairment (step three); that he had the residual functional capacity to 

perform light work, with the limitation of occasionally climbing ladders, ropes, scaffolds, 

ramps and stairs, and occasionally balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and 

crawling (step four); and that he could not perform any past relevant work as a carpenter, 

concrete-paving supervisor, or home repairer.

In determining residual functional capacity, the ALJ found that Keys’s testimony

was not consistent with the medical record. The ALJ discounted Keys’s claims that he 

could not walk further than a block, sit, stand, lift, or use his hands effectively. The ALJ 

cited Dr. Onamusi’s observation that Keys could use his hands and treatment notes from 

2012, when Keys moved freely, used his hands normally, or said that his pain had 

improved. The ALJ assigned great weight to the opinions of Drs. Onamusi, Brill, and 

Sands because they were consistent with the record. At step five, based on the testimony 

of a vocational expert that Keys could perform jobs such as cashier, retail marker, and 

furniture rental consultant, the ALJ concluded that he was not disabled. The Appeals 

Council denied further administrative review. On judicial review, a magistrate judge 

presiding by consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) affirmed the ALJ’s decision. 

On appeal, Keys argues that the ALJ made two errors in according great weight to

the opinions of Drs. Brill and Sands—agency physicians who had not examined him. 

First, he says that the doctors did not review either the two spinal MRIs showing new

“mild” and “minimal” narrowing or the report from his back surgery in late 2012. The 

Case: 16-1745 Document: 34 Filed: 02/09/2017 Pages: 6
No. 16-1745 Page 5

information in these documents, Keys suggests, should have (1) counseled the doctors to 

recommend a more limited residual functional capacity and (2) prompted the ALJ to 

order the doctors to reconsider their opinions. 

It is true that Drs. Brill and Sands did not review these later reports, but Keys has 

not provided any evidence that the reports would have changed the doctors’ opinions. If 

an ALJ were required to update the record any time a claimant continued to receive 

treatment, a case might never end. Scheck v. Astrue, 357 F.3d 697, 702 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Keys did not explain how the findings on those reports undermine the uncontroverted 

opinions of Drs. Brill and Sands, who found limitations in Keys’ ability to lift, carry, and 

perform postural movements, but limitations that did not render him completely 

disabled. Keys did not provide such evidence, so it was not error for the ALJ to rely on 

the opinions of Drs. Brill and Sands.

Second, Keys argues that Drs. Brill and Sands did not specify in their opinions that 

they considered his rheumatoid arthritis or rotator-cuff tear. Indeed, the doctors also did 

not discuss these conditions, but this omission does not mean that their opinions could 

not be accorded great weight by the ALJ. The agency regulations do not prevent the ALJ 

from according great weight to a doctor who has considered only some of the claimant’s 

conditions, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, although the regulations do require the ALJ herself 

to consider all impairments in combination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1523; Enstrand v. Colvin, 

788 F.3d 655, 661 (7th Cir. 2015). The ALJ accounted for Keys’s arthritic and rotator-cuff 

conditions when she credited the opinion of Dr. Onamusi, who performed a physical 

examination of Keys and specifically considered both his arthritis and his rotator cuff 

tear. The ALJ then discussed these conditions in her opinion, acknowledging Keys’s 

history of arthritis and shoulder dislocations due to the rotator-cuff tear. That Drs. Brill 

and Sands did not also address these two conditions does not undermine the ALJ’s 

decision to accord their opinions great weight.

Keys next argues that the ALJ did not support her decision in formulating the 

residual functional capacity to impose no upper-extremity limitations. First, he asserts

generally that the ALJ did not address his carpal tunnel symptoms. But the ALJ did

address these symptoms. She observed that he had tested positive in April 2012 for signs 

of carpal tunnel, and that tests later that year did not show signs of carpal tunnel—and 

that his doctor for several visits did not even test for carpal tunnel. Second, Keys asserts

that the ALJ overlooked evidence that his arthritis “flares up” and occasionally impairs 

his hands. But the ALJ discussed these symptoms, too. She acknowledged Keys’s 

testimony that arthritis pain limited the use of his hands, but pointed out that his 

testimony was contradicted by Dr. Onamusi’s report that he could perform fine fingering 

motions. The ALJ’s analysis of Keys’s arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome was sufficient 

Case: 16-1745 Document: 34 Filed: 02/09/2017 Pages: 6
No. 16-1745 Page 6

to support her decision to omit upper extremity limitations from the residual functional 

capacity.

Keys’s final argument is that the ALJ omitted from her assessment of his residual 

functional capacity a limitation on concentration because she did not properly evaluate 

the “overlay” of his mental and physical symptoms. In his view, the ALJ relied on the 

lack of objective medical evidence of pain to discredit his testimony that pain affects his 

concentration. But Keys misapprehends the ALJ’s analysis. The ALJ did not reject his

testimony solely because there was no objective medical evidence; rather, the ALJ found

Keys’s testimony inconsistent with statements he made to his treating physicians

between May and November 2012 that his pain had improved. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1529(c)(4) (ALJ will assess inconsistencies in evidence, including the claimant’s 

statements); Schmidt v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 737, 747 (7th Cir. 2005). Once the ALJ decided 

not to credit Keys’s testimony that pain limited his ability to concentrate, she did not err 

in her assessment of his residual functional capacity when she imposed no limitation on 

his concentration.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-1745 Document: 34 Filed: 02/09/2017 Pages: 6