# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued November 17, 2015
Decided December 10, 2015

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 15-1825

TODD L. MICHALEC, Plaintiff-Appellant

,

v

.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 14-1005

J oe Billy McDade,
J udge

.

O R D E R

Todd Michalec was denied disability insuranc e benefits after claiming that severe osteoarthritis, cervical spine degeneration, and other ailments left him incapable of working. An administrative law judge foun d that Michalec still had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work during the insured period. On judicial review, Michalec argues that the ALJ overlook ed critical evidence and made a patently erroneous credibility assessment. We disagree. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
decision, so we affirm.

When he was 45 years old, Michalec applie d for benefits. He claimed an onset date in June 2007 and a last-insured date in Dece mber 2010. He said he was disabled due to severe degenerative osteoarthritis of th e cervical spine and a previous lumbar NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1No. 15-1825 Page 2

laminectomy. 1 Before his onset date, Michalec had worked for a decade as a youth supervisor counselor at a juvenile detention fa cility and then for four years as a part-time sales clerk. According to Michalec, he last worked in 2005, when his employer went out of

business.

After two trips to the emergency room for worsening neck and back pain in May 2007, Michalec sought treatment from a rehabilitation specialist, Dr. Omprakash Sureka. Dr. Sureka noted Michalec’s complaints ab out numbness and tingling of both hands, weakness in the right arm, limited range of motion of the spine and shoulders, and pain radiating from the neck and upper back into the should ers and upper arms. According to Dr. Sureka, follow-up x-rays showed “severe osteoarthritis involving the shoulder” and “mild multi level degenerative en d plate irregularity” of the cervical spine, with a slight displacement of vertebrae at the C3-C4 level and some narrowi ng of the vertebrae at the C3-C4 and C4-C5 levels. Dr. Sureka prescribed physical therapy and ke pt Michalec on his existing pain medications, including Vicodi n and a fentanyl patch. For the next year, Michalec was treated primarily by his general-care provider for pain, depression, venous insufficiency, 2 and other conditions.

At one appointment in August 2008, Dr. Sureka observed that Michalec was experiencing headaches, severe neck and sh oulder pain, diminished sensation in two fingers, limited range of motion in his sp ine and shoulders, normal muscle strength, normal reflexes, and moderate muscle spasms around his spine. Although Dr. Sureka prescribed more physical therapy, he de clined Michalec’s request for more pain

medication.

Around this time, Michalec began telling his treating physicians that he was working as a personal trainer, a fact that wo uld prove critical to the ALJ’s later adverse

1 Laminectomy is surgery that creates space by removing the lamina—the back part of the vertebra that covers the spinal canal. Also known as decompression surgery, laminectomy enlarges the spinal canal to relie ve pressure on the spinal cord or nerves. Laminectomy , M AYO C LINIC , www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/ laminectomy/basics/ definition/prc-20009521 (visited Nov. 19, 2015).

2 Venous insufficiency is a problem with the flow of blood from the veins of the legs back to the heart. Venous Insufficiency , W EB MD, www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/ venous-insufficiency-topic-overview (visited Nov. 19, 2015). It can cause swelling and

discoloration of the feet and ankles. See id.No. 15-1825 Page 3

credibility finding. Michalec initially told D r. Sureka in May 2007 that he was unemployed, but he updated the doctor in 2008 and 2009 that he was working as a personal trainer at Fitness America. (In 2010, Michalec also told his general practitioner, Dr. Michael Whitford, that he was a self-employed sports trainer.)

In August 2009, Dr. Brent Johnson, an or thopedic surgeon, recommended that Michalec undergo replacement surgery on both shoulders. He cautioned Michalec,
however, that he could not “continue to be ac tive and do significant weightlifting with shoulder replacements.” Michalec opted for cort icosteroid injections instead of surgery.

In connection with Michalec’s applicatio n for benefits, an agency physician, Dr. Richard Smith, filled out a Physical Re sidual Functional Capacity Assessment for Michalec and opined that Michalec could lift ten pounds frequently, sit or stand for six hours out of an eight-hour workday, and reach for no more than one-third of the workday.

The Social Security Administration denied Michalec’s application initially and again on reconsideration. In July 2012, Michal ec appeared before an ALJ along with a non-attorney representative and testified abou t his work history and physical limitations, including that he had not worked since Jun e 2007, his alleged onset date. The ALJ asked him to explain why he told two different doct ors that he had been working as a personal trainer. Michalec denied ever having worked as a personal trainer. He said that he had

lied to his doctors because of the embar rassment he felt about being unemployed. Michalec also asserted that his physical limit ations had worsened since he had applied for
benefits. He did not, however, address his limitations during the insured period.

A vocational expert also testified at th e hearing about the work Michalec could do. The ALJ asked the expert to consider hypo thetical limitations fo r routine, sedentary work not requiring climbing or hazardous conditions, involving no more than occasional reaching to shoulder level an d no more than frequent fine manual manipulation. The expert opined that such an individual would not be able to perform Michalec’s past relevant work but would be able to work as an addressing clerk, optical assembler, or circuit-board assembler. The expe rt clarified that th ese jobs would, to varying degrees, accommodate a need to altern ate between sitting and standing.

The ALJ concluded that Michalec had not be en disabled during the insured period. Applying the required fi ve-step analysis, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4), the ALJ determined that during the relevant 2007–2010 pe riod: (Step 1) Michalec had not engagedNo. 15-1825 Page 4

in substantial gainful activity; (Step 2) his osteoarthritis of the knees and shoulders, history of knee and lumbar surgeries, cervic al spine degeneration, venous insufficiency, and obesity were severe impairments; (Step 3) none of those impairments equaled a listed impairment leading to an automatic finding of disability; (Step 4) he had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work, provided that it did not require him to perform constant fine manipulations or to reac h to shoulder level mo re than occasionally; and (Step 5) he was capable of performing eith er his past relevant work as a correctional treatment specialist or the sedentary jobs identified by the vocational expert. In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ explained that she qu estioned Michalec’s credibility, particularly with regard to his explanation for supposedl y lying to his doctors about working as a personal trainer. She also noted that no trea ting physician had assessed Michalec as being “unable to perform most work activities of se dentary duty work during the period of time under consideration.” The Appeals Council de nied Michalec’s request for review. The district court upheld the ALJ’s decision.

On appeal, Michalec asserts that the ALJ’s decision is so “poorly articulated as to prevent meaningful appellate review” beca use the ALJ did not discuss his depression, chronic tension headaches, or an orthopedic specialist’s opinion that he needed replacement surgery on both shoulders. As the Commissioner points out, Michalec forfeited this argument by failing to present it to the district court. See Schomas v. Colvin

, 732 F.3d 702, 708 (7th Cir. 2013). In any event, Michalec does not attribute to these impairments any specific functional limitatio ns that he believes the ALJ should have considered in formulating the residual functional capacity finding.

Michalec next argues that the ALJ should have included in her residual functional capacity analysis additional physical limitatio ns based on his knee problems and venous insufficiency. Michalec forfeite d these arguments, as well, by failing to raise them in the

district court. See Schomas , 732 F.3d at 708. He also failed to cross-examine the vocational expert about these limitations. See Barrett v. Barnhart , 355 F.3d 1065, 1067 (7th Cir. 2004). Michalec has not explained why his knee prob lems—including arthritis, a torn meniscus, and a torn ACL—would limit his ability to perform even sedentary work. Michalec suggests that the ALJ should have incorporat ed into her residual functional capacity analysis a doctor’s recommendation that he elevate his legs higher than his heart for twenty minutes four times per day. That recommendation came two weeks after Michalec’s disability insurance expired, so it is irrelevant for present purposes.

See Shideler v. Astrue , 688 F.3d 306, 311 (7th Cir. 2012). Michalec cites no evidence showing that his venous insufficiency posed any funct ional limitation during the relevant time period.No. 15-1825 Page 5

We turn to arguments that have not been forfeited. Michalec faults the ALJ for not addressing medical evidence that he says undermines her conclusion that he could occasionally reach to shoulder level and fr equently perform “fine manipulations” with both hands. Michalec says the ALJ should have considered a 2009 MRI showing cervical disc protrusions and moderate nerve cord compression and x-rays showing severe

osteoarthritis of the shoulders. In formulat ing Michalec’s residual functional capacity, however, the ALJ relied on Dr. Smith’s report , which relied on the MRI and x-ray results, to support his conclusion that Michalec’s ex ertional limitations were modest. As the ALJ noted, none of Michalec’s treating physicia ns offered contrary opinions about his ability to perform most of the activities of sedentary work. See Filus v. Astrue , 694 F.3d 863, 867 (7th Cir. 2012) (ALJ did not err in relying upon uncontradicted opinions from reviewing physicians). The only evidence contradicti ng Dr. Smith’s opinion about Michalec’s exertional limitations was his own subjective testimony, which the ALJ discredited based on Michalec’s credibility problems.

Finally, Michalec challenges the ALJ’s ad verse credibility finding on grounds that his statements to his doctors about working as a personal trainer could be explained by his depression and embarrassment about be ing unemployed. The ALJ acknowledged Michalec’s potential unease in not wanting to admit he was unemployed; what the ALJ

found incredible was that Michalec would inform two physicians treating him for allegedly debilitating pain that he was performing such vigorous work as personal training in physical fitness. In light of th e inconsistencies between Michalec’s statements to his doctors and his testimony at the hear ing, Michalec has not shown that the ALJ’s credibility assessment is patently erroneous. See Murphy v. Colvin , 759 F.3d 811, 815–16 (7th Cir. 2014).

Because substantial evidence supports th e ALJ’s decision and the ALJ made no reversible legal errors, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.