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 

Joe Billy McDade, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Todd Michalec was denied disability insurance benefits after claiming that severe 

osteoarthritis, cervical spine degeneration, and other ailments left him incapable of 

working. An administrative law judge found that Michalec still had the residual 

functional capacity to perform sedentary work during the insured period. On judicial 

review, Michalec argues that the ALJ overlooked 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 applied for benefits. He claimed an onset date 

in June 2007 and a last-insured date in December 2010. He said he was disabled due to 

severe degenerative osteoarthritis of the cervical spine and a previous lumbar 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 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 facility 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 about 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 shoulders and upper arms. According to 

Dr. Sureka, follow-up x-rays showed “severe osteoarthritis involving the shoulder” and 

“mild multi level degenerative end plate irregularity” of the cervical spine, with a slight 

displacement of vertebrae at the C3-C4 level and some narrowing of the vertebrae at the 

C3-C4 and C4-C5 levels. Dr. Sureka prescribed physical therapy and kept Michalec on his 

existing pain medications, including Vicodin 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 shoulder pain, diminished sensation in two 

fingers, limited range of motion in his spine and shoulders, normal muscle strength, 

normal reflexes, and moderate muscle spasms around his spine. Although Dr. Sureka 

prescribed more physical therapy, he declined 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 would 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 relieve pressure on the spinal cord or nerves. 

Laminectomy, MAYO CLINIC, 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, WEBMD, 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 Dr. 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 orthopedic surgeon, recommended that 

Michalec undergo replacement surgery on both shoulders. He cautioned Michalec, 

however, that he could not “continue to be active and do significant weightlifting with 

shoulder replacements.” Michalec opted for corticosteroid injections instead of surgery. 

In connection with Michalec’s application for benefits, an agency physician, 

Dr. Richard Smith, filled out a Physical Residual 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, Michalec appeared before an ALJ along with a 

non-attorney representative and testified about his work history and physical limitations, 

including that he had not worked since June 2007, his alleged onset date. The ALJ asked 

him to explain why he told two different doctors 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 embarrassment he felt about being unemployed. 

Michalec also asserted that his physical limitations 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 the hearing about the work Michalec could 

do. The ALJ asked the expert to consider hypothetical limitations for routine, sedentary 

work not requiring climbing or hazardous conditions, involving no more than 

occasional reaching to shoulder level and 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 expert clarified that these jobs would, to 

varying degrees, accommodate a need to alternate between sitting and standing. 

The ALJ concluded that Michalec had not been disabled during the insured period. 

Applying the required five-step analysis, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4), the ALJ 

determined that during the relevant 2007–2010 period: (Step 1) Michalec had not engaged 
No. 15-1825 Page 4 

in substantial gainful activity; (Step 2) his osteoarthritis of the knees and shoulders, 

history of knee and lumbar surgeries, cervical 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 reach to shoulder level more than occasionally; 

and (Step 5) he was capable of performing either 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 questioned Michalec’s credibility, particularly 

with regard to his explanation for supposedly lying to his doctors about working as a 

personal trainer. She also noted that no treating physician had assessed Michalec as being 

“unable to perform most work activities of sedentary duty work during the period of time 

under consideration.” The Appeals Council denied 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” because 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 limitations 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 limitations based on his knee problems and venous 

insufficiency. Michalec forfeited 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 problems—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 incorporated 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 functional 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 frequently 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 formulating 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 exertional limitations were modest. As the ALJ 

noted, none of Michalec’s treating physicians 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 contradicting 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 adverse 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 being 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 the inconsistencies between Michalec’s statements 

to his doctors and his testimony at the hearing, 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 the ALJ’s decision and the ALJ made no 

reversible legal errors, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.