Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02498/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02498-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolyn W. Colvin
Appellee
Daniel J. Hall
Appellant

Document Text:

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ 

No. 14-2498 

DANIEL J. HALL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social

 Security, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. 

No. 1:13-cv-00993-JMS-MJD — Jane E. Magnus-Stinson, Judge. 

____________________ 

SUBMITTED JANUARY 20, 2015 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 20, 2015 

____________________ 

Before POSNER, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges. 

POSNER, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal by an applicant 

for social security disability benefits named Daniel Hall, who 

was turned down by the Social Security Administration seconded by the district court. An aviation mechanic discharged in 2001 by the military (we are not told which 

branch) because of pain from an ankle injury, he was 

deemed by the Department of Veterans Affairs to be 70 perCase: 14-2498 Document: 11 Filed: 02/20/2015 Pages: 6
2 No. 14-2498 

cent disabled and, more important, to be “unemployable” in 

“a substantially gainful occupation” and therefore totally 

disabled. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. In 2010 he applied for social security disability benefits on the ground that pain from his ankle injury, together with back and knee pain and other ailments, had steadily worsened and by 2009 had rendered him 

totally disabled under the standards of the Social Security 

Act.

Between 2005 and 2011 he underwent a series of physical 

examinations and diagnostic tests. Some of the results were 

normal but many were not, and revealed torn ligaments, 

obesity (a BMI varying between 30 and 32—and 30 is considered the threshold of obesity), possible arthritis in a knee 

and ankle, an “alignment problem” in his back, and fibromyalgia. At his hearing before administrative law judge Blanca B. de la Torre, Hall testified that he can’t sit continuously 

for more than half an hour or stand continuously for more 

than an hour, is incapacitated by his pain for at least six days 

a month, of the 12 days per month on which his wife is 

working and he is home alone with the children he is incapacitated for six of them and has to get help from his father

to take care of the children, and that often when his wife is at 

home he has to lie on his back and apply heat or ice to his 

body to alleviate his pain. Including pain killers and muscle 

relaxants, he takes four meds daily and they make him 

“drowsy” and “foggy.”

On the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing a 

vocational expert concluded that if as one of the doctors had 

said Hall can’t sit continuously for more than 15 minutes or 

stand for more than 10 (which may be underestimates—see 

preceding paragraph) and if his testimony about his pain 

Case: 14-2498 Document: 11 Filed: 02/20/2015 Pages: 6
No. 14-2498 3 

was credible, then Hall was indeed totally disabled, but otherwise he could perform such jobs as general office clerk, 

hand packer, or ticket checker.

The administrative law judge concluded that Hall was 

not totally disabled, albeit severely impaired by the effects of 

a torn ligament in his ankle, obesity, and a torn meniscus in 

his knee. (The meniscus is a piece of cartilage in the knee—

and a tear of it can be extremely painful. WebMD, “Fitness & 

Exercise: Knee Injury and Meniscus Tear,” www.webmd.

com/fitness-exercise/meniscustear (visited Feb. 11, 2015, as 

were the other websites cited in this opinion).) She emphasized that Hall spends what she called a “significant” 

amount of time taking care of his children, though it’s only 

12 days a month and on half of them he needs his father’s 

help. 

The administrative law judge expressed skepticism that 

Hall’s medications make him drowsy, and was critical that 

he had sought physical therapy only belatedly, implying

that he is the author of his troubles. She gave “little weight” 

to a doctor’s testimony that supported Hall’s claims of pain, 

in part because the doctor had seen Hall only three times. 

She thought it suspicious that he hadn’t seen doctors more 

frequently, though he explained that it’s very difficult to get 

an appointment with a Veterans Administration doctor. (Delay in obtaining such appointments has become notorious. 

See, e.g., Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Abby Goodnough, “Doctor Shortage Is Cited in Delays at V.A. Hospitals,” New York 

Times, May 29, 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/us/doct

or-shortages-cited-in-va-hospital-waits.html.) Her principal 

reason for concluding that Hall is not totally disabled by 

pain is that the diagnostic tests, mainly x-rays, that he unCase: 14-2498 Document: 11 Filed: 02/20/2015 Pages: 6
4 No. 14-2498 

derwent provided only limited support for his pain complaints. However, for such soft-tissue injuries an MRI is a 

better diagnostic tool than an x-ray. National Library of 

Medicine, Medline Plus, “Lumbosacral Spine X-Ray,” www.

nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003807.htm. Although 

Hall had an MRI of his ankle in 2005 and of his knee in 2007, 

remember that he said he hadn’t become totally disabled until 2009. He obtained a third MRI two months after his hearing before the administrative law judge, and this one

showed degeneration of the mid-spine and some spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spinal cavity). But it came too late to 

influence the decision of his case.

The administrative law judge said she gave “some” but 

not “great” weight to the Veterans Administration’s determination that Hall is totally unemployable, because the two 

agencies use different criteria for determining disability. But 

the differences are small. See McCartey v. Massanari, 298 F.3d 

1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2002). The VA deems that pain itself can 

support a finding of disability, 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 

whereas for the Social Security Administration pain can only 

be a symptom of a disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Also, the 

VA varies compensation depending on how disabled an applicant is, while the Social Security Administration awards 

benefits only for total disability. But although the VA rated 

Hall “only” 70 percent disabled, it pronounced him totally 

unemployable by reason of his disability, see 38 C.F.R. § 

4.16, which equates to a finding of total disability under the 

regulations of the Social Security Administration. For if your 

medical condition precludes substantial gainful employment, you’re totally disabled—that’s the Social Security 

Administration’s definition of disability. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 423(d)(1)(A). 

Case: 14-2498 Document: 11 Filed: 02/20/2015 Pages: 6
No. 14-2498 5 

The administrative law judge’s most serious error, one 

we’ve noted in previous cases (see next paragraph), is her 

belief that complaints of pain, to be credible, must be confirmed by diagnostic tests. Even if that were true, she should 

have known of the limitations of x-rays as tools for diagnosing pain and, knowing that, should have ordered an MRI 

before issuing her decision, because his two earlier MRIs 

had, he testified, preceded the onset of his total disability.

It is understandable that administrative law judges want 

diagnostic confirmation of claims of pain. Without such confirmation the administrative law judge has to determine the 

applicant’s credibility, and it is often very difficult to determine whether a witness is telling the truth—especially when 

as in this case he has an incentive to exaggerate. But as numerous cases (and the Social Security Administration’s own 

regulation) make clear, an administrative law judge may not 

deny benefits on the sole ground that there is no diagnostic 

evidence of pain but only the applicant’s or some other witness’s say so: “an individual’s statements about the intensity 

and persistence of pain or other symptoms or about the effect the symptoms have on his or her ability to work may not 

be disregarded solely because they are not substantiated by 

objective medical evidence.” SSR 96–7p(4); see, e.g., Pierce v. 

Colvin, 739 F.3d 1046, 1049–50 (7th Cir. 2014); Carradine v. 

Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751, 753 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Several doctors noted that Hall had been in pain when 

examined, and this was some corroboration of his testimony. 

The administrative law judge could have resolved her 

doubts by ordering an MRI or directing a further examination by a medical expert. Her failure to do either leaves her 

determination that Hall is not disabled without a foundation 

Case: 14-2498 Document: 11 Filed: 02/20/2015 Pages: 6
6 No. 14-2498 

in substantial evidence. Her failure to analyze and weigh the 

Veteran Administration’s determination that the applicant is 

totally disabled was a further oversight.

The denial of disability benefits cannot be sustained. The 

decision of the district court is reversed with directions to 

remand the case to the Social Security Administration for 

further proceedings consistent with the analysis in this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Case: 14-2498 Document: 11 Filed: 02/20/2015 Pages: 6