Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02696/USCOURTS-ca7-09-02696-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
Barbara Suide
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued March 2, 2010

Decided April 16, 2010

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge    

No. 09‐2696

BARBARA SUIDE,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant‐Appellee.

                     

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 1:08‐cv‐02967

Charles R. Norgle,

Judge.

O R D E R

Barbara Suide applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security

income in December 2003.  She claimed at the time that she had been disabled after October

2000due to bilateral carpaltunnel syndrome, arthritis, and“triggerfinger” (aninflamedtendon

and tendon sheath of a finger).    But the case changed substantially by the time an

administrative law judge conducted a hearing in December 2007.  By then Suide had suffered

two strokes and had filed a second application for benefits that added several more medical

conditions to her list of disabling impairments.  The ALJ concluded that Suide was impaired

by carpal tunnel, trigger finger, stroke, migraines, and obesity but that she was still able to

perform some light or sedentary work.  On judicial review, the district court affirmed.  On

appeal Suide arguesprincipally that(1)theALJ’s assessment of herresidualfunctional capacity

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-2696 Document: 18 Filed: 04/16/2010 Pages: 8
No. 09‐2696 Page 2

was flawed because it did not account for all of her impairments and (2) the ALJ should not

have discredited the opinions of her treating physician.    Although substantial evidence

supports the ALJ’s determination that Suide was not disabled before herfirst stroke, the record

is insufficientto sustaintheALJ’s findings aboutherresidualfunctional capacitydetermination

after her strokes.  We therefore remand the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings

to determine whether Suide qualifies for benefits after her stroke in December 2006.

When she applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income

in December 2003, Suide was 37 years old and had worked previously as a mail clerk and K‐

Mart cashier.  In support of her claim, Suide submitted evidence of right‐hand carpal tunnel

syndrome and triggerfinger, which required two surgeries to alleviate her pain and to remove

part of a tendon from her right hand.  She continued to complain of pain, tenderness, and

stiffness in her hands and was later diagnosed with left carpal tunnel syndrome.    Her

diagnosing doctor instructed her to wear a wrist brace when necessary, but the doctor also

noted that some of Suide’s complaints were atypical of carpal tunnel, such as numbness in

isolated fingers, and that it was unusual for Suide to have still a full range of motion and

normal electromyography.  Suide also submitted evidence that she had a third surgery to

remove a cyst from her right hand in October 2004.  The treatments for her hands and wrists

appear to have been successful, and her doctors noted improvements in her grip strength and

an absence of pain, numbness, and tingling.

Suide’s initial application for benefits also referenced complaints of knee pain and

stiffness.  X‐rays taken in January 2003 showedsigns ofdegenerative arthritis—adiagnosis that

was consistently noted in her medical records until 2007, when a rheumatologist determined

that lupus might be the real cause of her joint pain.  Although at the hearing Suide testified

about the extent of her knee pain and its significant limitation on her mobility, there is little

documenting the effects of her pain or hertreatment plan otherthan occasional notations of her

pain complaints in the medical reports and the fact that she took glucosamine and over‐the‐

counter pain medications.  In addition, the record includes a few notations of Suide’s height

and weight measurements, suggesting that she qualifies as “obese,” but there is no medical

evidence that her weight complicated her joint pain.  She did not mention her weight in either

her first or second applications for benefits, nor did she bring up the subject before the ALJ.

In April 2004, several months after Suide applied for benefits, a state‐agency physician

assessed herresidual functional capacity.  The doctor, B. Rock Oh, concluded that Suide could

lift up to 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently.  He also concluded that she could

stand, walk, or sit each for approximately six hours per day.  Dr. Oh opined that Suide’s grip

strength was decreased in both hands, which inhibited manipulation as well as constant

handling and fingering.

  

Case: 09-2696 Document: 18 Filed: 04/16/2010 Pages: 8
No. 09‐2696 Page 3

Suide had been working for several months babysitting her neighbor’s children when

she learned that the Social Security Administration denied her claim and her request for

reconsideration in 2004.  The SSA determined that Suide’s carpal tunnel, trigger finger, and

arthritis did not limit her ability to work.  Suide requested a hearing before an ALJ, which was

eventually scheduled for December 11, 2007, after being rescheduled several times due to

Suide’s failure to appear.  Meanwhile, Suide stopped babysitting when the family moved away

in mid‐2004, but she went back to work as a K‐Mart cashier in May 2006.

  

Suide was still working at K‐Mart when she suffered a stroke in December 2006 – a year

before her hearing and shortly before her insured status expired at the end of that year.  She

was taken to the emergency room where doctors noted severe face droop, left‐side motor

weakness, and slurred speech.    Hospital doctors suspected, however, that Suide was

exaggerating her sensorymotordeficits, making itdifficultto assess her condition.  Suide tested

positive for cocaine, and the hospital doctors noted cocaine abuse as a secondary diagnosis and

as a possible cause of her stroke.  Suide later explained at the hearing that she had used the

drug for the first and last time approximately five days before her stroke.

Suide did not return to work, and she began physical therapy in February 2007.

Progress notes from her therapists show that her left‐side weakness caused balance problems

and difficulty walking.  Suide reported to her physical therapist that she was unable to walk

even one block without significant pain.  One therapist observed that Suide was not at risk of

falling due to her pain but was walking with a significant limp, and she suffered from

decreased balance and coordination.

InMarch 2007 a second state‐agency consultant, Dr. Linda Palacci, examined Suide.  Dr.

Palacci’s examinationencompasseda limitedphysical examination, a review of Suide’smedical

records, and a discussion of her symptoms, but no formal RFC evaluation.  Dr. Palacci noted

that Suide complained of left leg weakness, and that she was wearing an ankle brace and

walking with a cane to help with herfoot drag.  Suide reported morning stiffness lasting longer

than an hour and that her symptoms worsened with activities such as stair climbing.  Dr.

Palacci concluded that Suide had normalrange of motion in her knees, ankles, hips, shoulders,

elbows, wrists, and fingers, and that her grip strength was good in both hands.  Dr. Palacci

noted that Suide still walked with a slight limp and could walk only 10 feet without assistance,

but that she was able to squat and stand heel to toe.

The physical therapy helped, though, and Suide was making progress toward her goals

when she suffered two more setbacks.  In April 2007 she was admitted to the emergency room

after experiencing a sudden onset of uncontrolled shaking in her right hand and difficulty

talking, which the doctors diagnosed as a minor stroke.  The result of a CT‐scan of her head was

normal, and a neurological examination showed some right‐side weakness right after the

Case: 09-2696 Document: 18 Filed: 04/16/2010 Pages: 8
No. 09‐2696 Page 4

stroke, but the record does not show what, if any, long‐term effects she experienced.  In May

2007 her condition was exacerbated by a fall that injured her right hip.  Although Suide had

been using a cane, her physical therapist instructed her to switch to a walker after her fall to

relieve the pain and pressure on her hip.  By the end of her physical therapy that same month,

Suide had partially met her goals of demonstrating improved strength, but the physical

therapist noted that she had not met her goal of walking unassisted without a limp for one

block without experiencing significant pain.

     

Atthe hearing before theALJ, Suide testifiedthatfrom January through September 2007

she also had made monthly visits to Dr. Orris, an attending physician at Stroger Hospital’s

Fantus Clinic in Chicago.  Given the structure of the clinic, Suide concedes that Dr. Orris

himself may not have examined her during each visit, but she insists that he was her treating

physician and the doctor overseeing and coordinating her post‐stroke medical care.  Treatment

records from Dr. Orris are sparse, and there is documentation of just one office visit – in May

2007 – that occurred prior to Suide’s hearing.  The remainder of Dr. Orris’s treatment record

consists of two documents listing him as the treating physician on referrals and a physical‐

capacities evaluation that was created by Suide’s attorney and completed by Dr. Orris in

December 2007, after the hearing.  During the May examination, Dr. Orris opined that Suide

suffers from rheumatoid arthritis and residual transient weakness from her 2006 stroke.  He

alsodiagnosed“probablemigraine syndromepossibly triggeredby stress.”  Inthepost‐hearing

physical‐capacities evaluation (completed three months after Suide’s last reported visit in

September), Dr. Orris concluded that – in an eight‐hour day – Suide could sit for two hours at

a time (but only four hours total), stand for one hour at a time (two hours total), and walk a

total of one hour.  He also opined that she could never lift or carry more than ten pounds, and

could lift or carry less weight only occasionally.  Dr. Orris found that Suide could not use her

left hand forrepetitive action involving simple grasping, pushing or pulling, or either hand for

fine manipulation.  While Suide occasionally could bend, squat, crawl, climb, or reach, she

could never use either of her feet for repetitive movements, such as pushing leg controls.  Dr.

Orris concluded that Suide had achieved “maximum medical improvement” and that she was

unable to perform a full‐time job on a sustained basis.  The evaluation form also asked, “How

long have you been treating this patient?” to which Dr. Orris responded “1 month.”

  

Suide also testified that she was unable to work because her joints caused her pain that

lasted all day.  She also acknowledged that she had not had any treatment for her hand pain

since her last surgery in 2004 and was without a treating physician between 2003 and 2007,

when she began seeing Dr. Orris.    She acknowledged that she was not taking any pain

medications, but explained that her hand pain persisted and in the mornings she self‐treated

these symptoms by massaging her hands for 20 minutes.  She explained that Dr. Orris had also

recentlydiagnosedher withmigraine syndrome basedon the severeheadaches she experiences

two to three times per month.  When these headaches occur, she said, she addresses them with

Case: 09-2696 Document: 18 Filed: 04/16/2010 Pages: 8
No. 09‐2696 Page 5

Valium and sleep.  The ALJ asked Suide about the effects of her pain on her daily activities, and

she explained that she gets a lot of help from her family.  She also testified that it hurts for her

to grip a mop or a broom, that she can sit or stand for only five to ten minutes before she has

to change positions or lean on something for support, and that her knee and hip pain prevent

her from walking more than half a block before stopping.  During the hearing Suide said that

she was in pain and requested a break to stand.

  

The ALJ and Suide’s counsel posed hypothetical questions to a vocational expert, who

testified that someone with Suide’s age, work history, and impairments still could perform the

light work of a file clerk, an information clerk, or an assembly position and similar sedentary

positions.  The vocational expert determined that these jobs would be available if the employee

needed to take breaks to stand every 30 to 45 minutes.  Counsel further inquired what jobs an

individual could perform if she needed to recline for 15 to 30 minutes a day, use both hands

to lift more than ten pounds, lean after five to ten minutes of standing, and take a break after

walking no more than half a block.    In response the vocational expert testified that any

individual who needed to recline at times throughout the work day would be unable to work.

   The ALJ performed the requisite five‐step analysis, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, concluding

that(1) Suide had not engaged in gainful work since October 2000; (2) her carpal tunnel, trigger

finger, stroke, migraines, and obesity constituted severe impairments; (3) none of these

impairments individually or in combination met a listing in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app.1

that would lead to an automatic finding of disability; (4) Suide had the residual functional

capacity to perform a reduced range oflight or sedentary jobs thatinvolve no lifting or carrying

more than 20 pounds occasionally or 10 pounds frequently; no pushing or pulling more than

20pounds occasionally or 10pounds frequently; onlyoccasional stooping, kneeling, crouching,

crawling, or ramp/stair climbing; and at which “[s]he would be distracted only rarely by

symptoms, to the extent that she was off task and not productive, outside break time”; and (5)

Suide was not disabled because a person of her age, education, work experience, and RFC

could perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy.

In making this determination, the ALJ did not give significant weight to Dr. Orris’s

evaluation because, according to Dr. Orris’s own post‐hearing report, he had been treating

Suide for just one month and because “the objective findings do not support [his] restrictive

limitations.”  The ALJ also discredited the residual functional capacity assessment that Dr. Oh

completed in April 2004 because Suide’s later strokes had significantly changed her medical

condition and furtherlimited her abilities.  Regarding Suide’s post‐stroke condition, however,

the ALJ found:  “Though the claimant may have been unable to stand and walk for prolonged

periods immediately after her stroke, she underwent physical therapy and her weakness did

not persist at that level for 12 consecutive months or more” and that her weakness had

improved to the point where “she should be able, in a typical work day with normal breaks,

Case: 09-2696 Document: 18 Filed: 04/16/2010 Pages: 8
No. 09‐2696 Page 6

to stand and walk for at least six hours.”  The ALJ found that the record did not support Suide’s

statements regarding the severity and effects of her conditions.    For example, the ALJ

concluded that there was insufficient evidence that Suide experienced “migraine headaches at

a frequency or severity which would preclude or even significantly interfere with competitive

employment.”  The ALJ also dismissed Suide’s rheumatoid arthritis and lupus diagnoses,

reasoning that the “record does not contain the objective findings leading to the diagnosis of

rheumatoidarthritis,” there wasno “meaningful workup” of herlupus, nordidSuide complain

of symptoms attributed to this condition.  The district court upheld the ALJ’s denial of benefits,

and this appeal followed.

On appeal Suide argues that the ALJ erred in discrediting Dr. Orris’s opinion because

her own testimony and her medical records demonstrate that Dr. Orris had been treating her

for much longer than one month, and that his post‐hearing evaluation was consistent with

other findings in the record.  She also contends that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity

finding was flawedbecause itdidnot sufficiently accountforherhandimpairments, migraines,

and obesity.  In response, the Commissioner argues that the ALJ’s decision is supported by

substantial evidence and that Suide’s statements are the only evidence of a longer treatment

relationship with Dr. Orris.  Moreover, the Commissioner contends that the ALJ properly

considered her hand impairments, migraines, and obesity but found that none of these

conditions sufficiently limited her ability to work.    This court reviews an ALJ’s legal

determinations de novo, Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 841 (7th Cir. 2007), but reviews factual

determinationsdeferentially,upholding anydecisionthatis supportedby substantial evidence,

Getch v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 473, 480 (7th Cir. 2008).

Because Dr. Orris concluded that Suide was no longer able to work, the weight given

to his opinions may be decisive in this case.    Both parties focus their arguments on the

soundness of the ALJ’s decision to discount his reports.  The opinions oftreating physicians are

generally entitled to greater weight than those of examining physicians, and opinions of

examining physicians are entitled to greater weight than those of non‐examining physicians.

20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(1) ‐ (2).  As long as a treating physician’s opinion is “well‐supported by

medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is “not inconsistent

with other substantial evidence” in the case record, the ALJ should give it controlling weight.

Id.; S.S.R. 96‐2p; see Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2008).  According to Suide, the

ALJ erredindismissingDr.Orris’sphysical‐capacities evaluation from December 2007 because

that evaluation was consistent with other post‐stroke reports.  Moreover, Suide argues that the

ALJ should have realized that the “one month” span of treatment described by Dr. Orris in his

post‐hearing report was a mistake and that her testimony in conjunction with the handful of

pages in the record referring to Dr. Orris sufficiently called attention to the discrepancy.  Citing

cases describing an ALJ’s obligation to develop the record, Suide argues that, before reaching

a decision, the ALJ was required to request further documentation to resolve this record

Case: 09-2696 Document: 18 Filed: 04/16/2010 Pages: 8
No. 09‐2696 Page 7

conflict.  In response, the Commissioner counters that the sparse medical records are not what

one wouldexpectfrom the treating relationshipSuidedescribed; aside from theDecember 2007

evaluation, the records are limited to the one visit in May 2007 plus the appearance of his name

on the referrals.  And those referrals, the Commissioner insists, imply only that “his final

authorization was necessary for requests made by other doctors” at the clinic.    The

Commissioner also asserts that there is substantial evidence to show that Suide had

significantly improved after physicaltherapy to a point where she was not as restricted as Orris

suggested.

But it is not the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Orris’s reports that requires a remand in this

case.    Even assuming that Dr. Orris’s opinions did not deserve greater weight, it is the

evidentiary deficit left by the ALJ’s rejection of his reports – not the decision itself – that is

troubling.  The rest of the record simply does not support the parameters included in the ALJ’s

residual functional capacity determination, such as an ability to “stand or walk for six hours”

in a typical work day.  Without Dr. Orris’s opinions, Dr. Palacci’s evaluation and the notes from

Suide’s physical‐therapy sessions and her visits to other specialists are all that remain of the

post‐stroke medicalrecords.  The ALJ, however, did not discuss what weight was given to any

of these reports.  See Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 676 (7th Cir. 2008).  More important, Dr.

Palacci’s assessment was made before Suide suffered a second stroke and more injuries from

a fall – two events that may have changed Suide’s condition significantly.  In addition, Dr.

Palacci’s evaluation did not include a functional assessment of Suide’s abilities, nor did she

opine about any limitations Suide’s impairments may have caused, so her report could not be

usedto support specific limitations includedin Suide’s residualfunctional capacity.  Regarding

the physical‐therapy reports, the therapist noted that, although Suide had improved and her

strength was within functional limits by the time of her last visit in late May 2007, she still

walked with a limp and the assistance of a cane, had “decreased balance/coordination,” and

“difficulty with activities of daily living.”  It is unclear, therefore, how the ALJ concluded that

Suide could stand or walk for six hours a day.  See Barrett v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1065, 1066‐67

(7th Cir. 2004)(finding reversible error when ALJ determined that claimant could stand fortwo

hours because there was no medical evidence to support such a conclusion).

  

When an ALJ denies benefits, she must build an “accurate and logical bridge from the

evidence to her conclusion,” Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000), and she is not

allowed to “play doctor” by using her own lay opinions to fill evidentiary gaps in the record,

see Blakes v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 565, 570 (7th Cir. 2003).  Although Suide shares the blame for

failing to clarify the record discrepancy regarding the length of Dr. Orris’s treatment, it was the

ALJ’s responsibility to recognize the need forfurther medical evaluations of Suide’s conditions

beforemaking herresidualfunctional capacity anddisabilitydeterminations.  SeeGolembiewski

v. Barnhart, 322 F.3d 912, 918 (7th Cir. 2003) (remanding where ALJ ignored new medical issue

but should have sought more information); Smith v. Apfel, 231 F.3d 433, 437 (7th Cir. 2000)

Case: 09-2696 Document: 18 Filed: 04/16/2010 Pages: 8
No. 09‐2696 Page 8

(remanding where ALJ discounted severity of claimant’s arthritis without ordering updated

x‐rays); Murphy v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 630, 635 (7th Cir. 2007) (remanding where ALJ failed to

obtain additional records needed for medical expert to provide full and fair evaluation of

impairments).  The ALJ’s assessment of Suide’s post‐stroke residual functional capacity is not

supported by substantial evidence, and thus that determination cannot stand.  42 U.S.C. §

405(g); Briscoe v. Barnhart, 425 F.3d 345, 351 (7th Cir. 2005).

Although a remand is necessary, we reverse the ALJ’s decision only in part.  As the

parties noted and the ALJ explained, Suide’s condition significantly deteriorated after her

stroke in December 2006, and this date marked a dividing line in her claim.  Suide properly

conceded during oral argument that the ALJ’s denial of benefits was reasonable and well

supported for her condition up to the time of the first stroke.  We agree that the record supports

the ALJ’s denial of her disability claim from her alleged onset date of October 2000 through the

date of her first stroke.  Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further

proceedings to determine whether Suide qualifies for benefits after December 2006.  Because

we conclude that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination was flawed, we do not

need to address Suide’s related arguments regarding the ALJ’s assessment of her hand

impairments, her migraines, and her obesity and whetherthese conditions, eitherindividually

orin the aggregate, warranted the inclusion of additional limitations in herresidual functional

capacity.  On remand, the ALJ should give fresh consideration to the evidence of all of Suide’s

medical conditions as they relate to her disability claim beginning in December 2006.  Suide

shouldalsohave an opportunity to submit any additionaldocumentation relating toDr.Orris’s

treatment that can clarify the nature and extent of his treating relationship.

Accordingly we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.  

Case: 09-2696 Document: 18 Filed: 04/16/2010 Pages: 8