IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CURTIS R. DAVIS

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,1

,

Commissioner of

Social Security, 

Defendant. 

)

) 

) No. 12 C 1225

)

) Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

 This case is before the Court on cross motions for summary

judgment. Plaintiff, Curtis R. Davis, asks the Court to enter

Summary Judgment in his favor, and reverse or remand a previous

administrative decision denying him Disability Insurance Benefits

(“DIB”), Widower’s Disability Insurance Benefits (“DWB”), and

Supplemental Security Income benefits (“SSI”). The Commissioner

seeks summary judgment affirming his decision to deny benefits. 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 21, 2008, Curtis R. Davis filed applications for

Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), Disabled

Widower’s Benefits (“DWB”), and Supplemental Security Income

(“SSI”). Administrative Record at 172-182. In each of the

applications Mr. Davis alleged that his disability onset date

(“AOD”) was May 5, 2006. R. at 173, 176, 180. The Social

Security Administration initially denied all three of his

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 1 of 38 PageID #:513
applications on July 11, 2008, and again upon reconsideration on

September 8, 2008. R. at 106-117. Mr. Davis then filed a written

request for a hearing before an administrative law judge on

October 24, 2008. R. at 96. On May 26, 2010, Mr. Davis appeared

and testified at a hearing before Administrative Law Judge

(“ALJ”) James D. Wascher. 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Davis is a Chicago resident born on August 5, 1954. He

was 55 years old at time of the May 2010 hearing, and testified

that he is 6’1”, and last weighed 226 pounds. R. at 46. However,

the record shows that his weight has fluctuated between 226 and

243 pounds within the last three or four years. Id. He is a

widower with six adult children, but lives alone in his Chicago

apartment. R. at 177, 181. Mr. Davis indicated that he suffers

from a variety of infirmities, including chronic obstructive

pulmonary disease (“COPD”)/Emphysema, lower back pain, left

shoulder pain, impaired vision, diabetes, high blood pressure,

high cholesterol, an enlarged heart, and occasional spitting up

of blood. R. at 51-57. Mr. Davis is a habitual smoker and

typically smokes one pack per week. R. at 343. However, he states

that he used to smoke approximately 1 pack per day for a period

of 40 years. Id. He currently uses two inhalers to help manage

his respiratory complications due to emphysema. R. at 411. 

2

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 2 of 38 PageID #:514
Mr. Davis has had numerous past employment positions. R. at

216-223. He has worked as a security guard, a receiving clerk, a

car detailer, a housekeeper, a laborer, a driver, a warehouse

supervisor, a machine operator, and a punch press operator. Id.

He testified that he completed the first year of high school, but

has not received a GED certificate. R. at 47. Mr. Davis was 51

years old on his alleged disability onset date (“AOD”), and

asserts that he has not performed any substantial gainful

activity since that date due to his physical impairments. R. at

203. 

III. TESTIMONIES AT THE

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

1. Mr. Davis’ Testimony 

At the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge, Mr.

Davis testified that he became aware of his health problems

during his employment as a janitor at Plastech Corporation when

he fainted on the job and was taken to the emergency room. R. at

52. He stated that during that hospital stay, he learned that he

had an enlarged heart, emphysema, high blood pressure, high

cholesterol, and was prescribed medication for his illnesses. Id.

Mr. Davis testified that his shortness of breath was

predominately triggered by physical activity such as climbing

stairs, or environmental factors such as high temperatures. R. at

54. He stated that under either of these circumstances it was

3

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 3 of 38 PageID #:515
difficult for him to breathe, and he would have to use his two

inhalers every day to manage the condition. R. at 54. 

Mr. Davis also testified that he had been spitting up blood

for about a year, and that his doctors have not been able to

discern the cause of the issue, despite having taken a chest xray. R. at 53. He testified that he wakes up from sleeping about

two or three times a week choking and spitting up blood. R. at

55. He also testified that sometimes the attacks happen during

the daytime. Id. 

Mr. Davis testified that he takes diabetes medication every

morning, and his dosage has been doubled in order to keep his

symptoms under control. Id. He also indicated that he has blurry

vision and occasional numbness of his left side. R. at 57. 

Mr. Davis testified that, as a result of his disabilities,

he cannot stand for long periods of time. R. at 58. He claims

that this hinders his ability to work in certain employment

positions, and ultimately resulted in his termination as a

security guard. Id. He testified that out of an eight hour work

day, he would only be physically able to stand for a continuous

period of two or three hours. R. at 59. He also stated that he

has not worked in any paying employment position since his

disability onset date of May 5, 2006, but has been searching for

a job to no avail. R. at 51.

4

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 4 of 38 PageID #:516
Mr. Davis also indicated that he had been experiencing lower

back pain since the mid-1990’s and increasingly severe left

shoulder pain for at least 10 years. R. at 53. He testified that

his doctors are still unsure as to what is causing the left

shoulder pain, but he has been scheduled for an MRI exam. R. at

55. He testified that if he uses both arms, he can lift about 30

to 40 pounds for a short period of time, but not repetitively. R.

at 59.

Mr. Davis’ current prescription regimen is extensive.

According to his testimony, his treating physicians have

prescribed him medications for an enlarged prostate, high

cholesterol, high blood pressure, emphysema, diabetes and pain.

R. at 60. He stated that the medications often cause him to

experience side effects such as drowsiness and lack of energy,

which often require him to nap. Id.

Mr. Davis also testified that his typical daily activities

consist of staying at home watching TV, and occasionally going

out for holidays, special occasions or on Sundays for church when

a friend or relative picks him up. R. at 61. He stated that,

although he lives alone, his family members help him with

activities such as grocery shopping and lifting heavy laundry. R.

at 62. However, he testified that he is capable of completing

everyday tasks such as cooking and cleaning on his own. Id.

2. Dr. Cavanaugh: Medical Expert Testimony

5

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 5 of 38 PageID #:517
Next, the ALJ heard from Dr. John Cavanaugh, M.D., a board

certified internist with a practice in cardiology. Dr. Cavanaugh

testified as a Medical Expert (“ME”) pursuant to 20 C.F.R.

§416.927(e)(2)(iii). R. at 62. Dr. Cavanaugh testified that

objective medical evidence dating back to June of 2008 supports

the diagnosis of a left shoulder strain, mild COPD, hypertension,

and poorly controlled non-insulin dependent Type 2 diabetes. R.

at 66. However, he stated that none of those impairments met or

equaled any Listing, and none showed objective evidence of end

organ damage. R. at 66. 

Dr. Cavanaugh also testified that, with Mr. Davis’

identified impairments, he would be able to stand, walk and sit

for up to six hours out of an eight-hour workday, and that he

would be able to lift 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds

occasionally. R. at 67. Dr. Cavanaugh opined, “the evidence, in

my estimation does not meet or equal a Listing, but would be

consistent with a light level of activity with only occasional

overhead reaching with the left arm, and only moderate levels of

respiratory irritants and exposure to temperature extremes.” R.

at 66.

Dr. Cavanaugh clarified that, although Mr. Davis’ poorly

controlled conditions will likely worsen overtime, his assertion

that he is only able to stand for two or three hours out of an

eight-hour workday is unsupported by the record. R. at 67-68. 

6

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 6 of 38 PageID #:518
3. Cheryl Hoiseth: Vocational Expert Testimony

Vocational Expert (“VE”), Cheryl R. Hoiseth, also appeared and

testified at the administrative hearing on May 26, 2010. R. at

68. Ms. Hoiseth testified that, when considering Mr. Davis’

advanced age, limited education and physical limitations, he

would be incapable of performing his past relevant work. R. at

70, 73-74. Additionally, she testified that, although Mr. Davis

maintained three semi-skilled positions in the past, none of

those positions have skills that are transferrable to sedentary

work. R. at 73. However, Ms. Hoiseth further indicated that

there are other jobs that Mr. Davis would be capable of

performing, within the national or regional economy. R. at 74. 

Ms. Hoiseth identified three representative occupations that a

person with Mr. Davis’ age, education, work experience, and

residual functional capacity would be capable of performing:

machine packager (2,000-3,000 jobs in the greater Chicago area),

food service worker (2,000-3,000 jobs in the same area), and hand

packager (10,000 jobs in the same area). R. at 74. She testified

that these three positions are listed in the DOT as medium

exertion level jobs. Id. 

The ALJ then asked Ms. Hoiseth if there were any light

exertional level positions in the national economy that a person

with Mr. Davis’ age, education, work experience, and residual

functional capacity would be capable of performing. R. at 75. 

7

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 7 of 38 PageID #:519
Ms. Hoiseth indicated that, at 55 years of age, the MedicalVocational Guidelines (“the Grid”) would be used to determine

whether Mr. Davis could engage in substantial gainful activity.

R. at 75. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 (1998). 

The ALJ then asked Ms. Hoiseth to identify any positions in

the national economy that would be available to persons under the

age of 55 with Mr. Davis’ characteristics. R. at 75. Ms. Hoiseth

proceeded to identify three additional positions: hand packager,

housekeeping cleaner, and electronics worker, as eligible

positions for hypothetical people under the age of 55 possessing

Mr. Davis’ education and work experience. Id. Ms. Hoiseth

clarified that, if the individual were to be off task for 20% of

the workday or more, such limitations would preclude all work. R.

at 76-77. She added that, if Mr. Davis could stand for just two

to three hours, as he asserted, he would not be able to perform

any of the identified jobs. R. at 77. She also noted that, in

general, the tolerance for absences for the jobs identified is

about one and a half days per month, and just a half a day for

new employees. R. at 77. 

IV. MEDICAL EVIDENCE

In addition to the testimony, the ALJ had before him medical

evidence dating from April of 2001 to April of 2008. R. at 321-

339. The record shows that Mr. Davis began receiving treatment

8

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 8 of 38 PageID #:520
for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (“COPD”) and lower back

pain in October of 2007. R. at 318. Mr. Davis also received

treatment for hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and left shoulder

pain between January and early April of 2008. R. at 304-317. 

After Mr. Davis filed for social security benefits on April

21 2008, Internist Jeffrey Ryan, M.D., conducted an Internal

Medicine Consultative Examination of Mr. Davis on June 21, 2008.

R. at 342. Dr. Ryan then submitted his findings to the Bureau of

Disability Determination Services. R. at 342. Dr. Ryan described

Mr. Davis as a “well developed, well nourished man, who is

pleasant and cooperative, and in no apparent distress.” R. at

343. He further stated, “[Mr. Davis] is able to ambulate about

the examination room and get on/off the table without

difficulty.” Id. 

During the examination, Mr. Davis reported being diagnosed

with emphysema eight or nine years earlier. R. at 342. Mr. Davis

also asserted in the examination that his condition was getting

progressively worse, and that he had been experiencing shortness

of breath when performing minor activities such as climbing 10

stairs, walking eight blocks, or running for the bus. Id. Mr.

Davis communicated to Dr. Ryan that he had previously gone to the

emergency room for his emphysema about two to three months prior

to his visit. Id. Mr. Davis also reported being diagnosed with

9

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 9 of 38 PageID #:521
diabetes and high cholesterol within the eight months prior, and

hypertension for 20 years with no complications. R. at 343. 

Upon concluding the examination Dr. Ryan diagnosed Mr. Davis

with emphysema, diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure,

and left shoulder pain. R. at 344. Dr. Ryan concluded that,

while Mr. Davis’ range of motion in his left shoulder was

significantly limited, his grip strength in his left hand was

only slightly less than his right at a 4+/5. R. at 343. However,

he was still able to form a complete fist with both hands and his

manual dexterity was normal. Id. He also concluded that Mr.

Davis’ diabetes, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure showed

no evidence of end organ disease. Id. Finally Dr. Ryan indicated

that Mr. Davis’ blood pressure was 160/110, and that he “did have

some scattered rhonchi1 heard bilaterally in his lungs.” R. at

343. 

Soon after, in May 2008, Mr. Davis supplemented his social

security disability application with a Physical Impairments

Questionnaire describing his daily living activities. R. at 270.

He indicated that he experiences “lots of pain in left arm and

shoulder” when he attempts to carry grocery bags, laundry or

attempts to take out the trash. Id. He asserts that he has

1 Rhonchus is a wheezing or snoring sound heard upon auscultation of

the chest, caused by accumulation of mucus or other material. -

Dictionary.com

10

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 10 of 38 PageID #:522
trouble with lifting his left arm overhead, and also with sudden

backward movements. Id.

He further indicated that he regularly has shortness of

breath, and suffers from emphysema and a “bad heart”; at night he

wakes up spitting up blood and has reoccurring chest and back

pains. R. at 271. Finally, he indicated on the form that he is

capable of sitting for at least two hours, but has to take

frequent breaks after any kind of physical activity. Id. 

Less than a month after Dr. Ryan’s examination, Dr. Bonnie W.

Thomas, M.D., treated Mr. Davis for diabetes, COPD, lower back

pain, and left shoulder pain rated at an 8 out of 10 in severity

on July 9, 2008. R. at 381. The following day, non-examining

State-agency reviewer, Dr. Ernst Bone, M.D., conducted a Physical

Residual Functional Capacity Assessment of Mr. Davis’ condition.

R. at 364-371. Dr. Bone concluded that Mr. Davis had only nonexertional limitations, and no visual or communicative

limitations. R. at 365, 367. He also concluded that Mr. Davis did

have some postural limitations, and that he could only

occasionally climb ramps, stairs, ladders, ropes, and scaffolds.

R. at 366. He determined that Mr. Davis could frequently balance,

stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl without limitation. R. at 366.

Dr. Bone further opined that Mr. Davis could perform limited

reaching in all directions including overhead. R. at 367. 

11

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 11 of 38 PageID #:523
Dr. Bone, like Dr. Ryan, concluded that Mr. Davis

experienced shortness of breath after climbing 10 stairs, walking

8 blocks, or running to catch a bus. R. at 366. Also, like Dr.

Ryan, Dr. Bone concluded that, although Mr. Davis’ grip strength

in his left hand was slightly weaker than in his right, he could

still make a complete fist with both hands, and his manual

dexterity was normal in both hands. R. at 367. 

With regard to environmental limitations, Dr. Bone indicated

that, due to his emphysema, Mr. Davis should avoid concentrated

exposure to extreme cold, extreme heat, wetness, humidity, fumes,

odors, gases, or poorly ventilated areas. R. at 368. Dr. Bone

also diagnosed Mr. Davis with diabetes, high cholesterol, and

high blood pressure, and affirmed that these conditions showed no

evidence of end of organ disease. R. at 371. Based on the medical

evidence provided and Dr. Bone’s RFC report, the Social Security

Administration denied Mr. Davis’ social security benefits claim

on July 11, 2008, and again upon reconsideration on September 8,

2008. R. at 83-85, 86-88. 

The record shows that Mr. Davis was further treated for his

left shoulder pain and diabetes, and also began receiving

treatment for blurred vision, weakness, and numbness in June of

2009. R. at 400. He proceeded to have an x-ray taken of his left

shoulder at this time, which showed no signs of fractures or

dislocations in the shoulder, but showed some degenerative

12

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 12 of 38 PageID #:524
changes that could have been the cause of his pain. R. at 433. 

Mr. Davis continued to receive treatment from Dr. Thomas into the

beginning of 2010 for his worsening eyesight, diabetes, high

cholesterol, and high blood pressure. R. at 409. 

Finally, on March 24, 2010, Dr. Liana G. Palacci, D.O.,

conducted a consultative examination of Mr. Davis, and diagnosed

him with well-controlled emphysema, poorly controlled Type-2

noninsulin dependent diabetes, and left shoulder pain R. at 414. 

In the examination with Dr. Palacci, Mr. Davis indicated

that he had been diagnosed with emphysema and diabetes 10 years

prior. R. at 411. He stated that he had a history of tobacco use

for 41 years, and uses two Albuterol inhalers twice a day,

especially upon performing exertional activities. Id. Mr. Davis

denied any hospitalizations due to his emphysema, and denied any

shortness of breath. Id. With regard to his diabetes, Mr. Davis

told Dr. Palacci that his blood sugar runs in the 280s, and that

he often experiences blurry vision, dry mouth, and numbness in

his hands and feet. Id. 

Mr. Davis also communicated to Dr. Palacci that he had been

having left shoulder pain for six years, but all past tests had

been inconclusive. R at 411. He claimed that he wore a sling for

six months, but received no physical therapy or injections for

the pain. Id. He also told Dr. Palacci that he could perform

overhead activity with occasional difficulty. Id. 

13

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 13 of 38 PageID #:525
Dr. Palacci completed a medical source statement, and opined

that Mr. Davis was capable of lifting and carrying 10 pounds

continuously, 11-20 pounds frequently, and 21-50 pounds

occasionally. R. at 416. She also stated that Mr. Davis was

capable of sitting, standing, and walking for up to five

uninterrupted hours, and that he would be able to sit, stand, and

walk for a total of seven hours out of a typical eight hour work

day. R. at 417. In the statement, Dr. Palacci also indicated that

Mr. Davis’ lungs were free of rhonchi or wheezes, he does not use

a cane to walk, and is right hand dominant, but frequently has

trouble reaching with his left arm due to shoulder pain. R. at

413, 418. 

Dr. Palacci’s statement differed from Dr. Bone’s earlier

report that stated that Mr. Davis could only occasionally climb

stairs, ramps, ladders, and scaffolds; she determined that he

could do so continuously. R. at 419. Dr. Palacci also determined

that Mr. Davis could frequently tolerate exposure to dust, odors,

fumes, and pulmonary irritants. R. at 420. 

The record also includes a Cook County Bureau of Health

Service report indicating that, as of March 25, 2008, Mr. Davis

was taking approximately nine different prescription medications

in order to manage his diabetes, high blood pressure, high

cholesterol, COPD/Emphysema, and left shoulder pain. R. at 427. 

However, soon after filing for social security benefits Mr. Davis

14

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 14 of 38 PageID #:526
submitted a Disability Report to the Social Security

Administration Field Office listing 13 prescriptions, and later

submitted another form listing as many as 17 medications

prescribed to him by various physicians. R. at 230, 259-261. 

V. THE ALJ’S DECISION

The ALJ held the hearing for Mr. Davis’ case on May 26,

2010. R. at 130. He rendered his decision on October 21, 2010,

and after considering all of the evidence presented, ruled that

Mr. Davis was not disabled within the meaning of the Social

Security Act. R. at 30. In so doing, the ALJ applied a five-step

sequential analysis as required by the Social Security Act, under

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). 

At step one, the ALJ determined that Mr. Davis had not

engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset

date of May 5, 2006. R. at 23.

At step two, the ALJ determined that Mr. Davis’ emphysema,

diabetes mellitus, corrected vision, and osteoarthritis of his

left shoulder were severe impairments that caused significant

limitations in his ability to perform basic work activities. Id. 

At step three, the ALJ determined that these impairments, or

combination of impairments did not meet or medically equal one of

the listed impairments from 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,

Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526). Id.

15

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 15 of 38 PageID #:527
Between steps three and four the ALJ examined Mr. Davis’

residual functional capacity, and determined that Mr. Davis had

the RFC to perform medium work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §

404.1567(c) and 416.967(c). Id. He explained, that this included

lifting up to 50 pounds occasionally, and 25 pounds frequently;

standing and walking up to six hours in an eight-hour workday;

occasionally climbing ladders, ropes, scaffolds, ramps, or

stairs; occasionally reaching overhead with his left hand; with

no concentrated exposure to extreme heat, cold, wetness,

humidity, or pulmonary irritants. Id. The ALJ also stated that

Mr. Davis’ had 20/50 vision in each eye. Id.

The ALJ indicated that he considered all symptoms and the

extent to which they would reasonably be accepted as consistent

with the objective medical evidence, as required by 20 C.F.R. §

404.1529 and 416.929 and SSR’s 96-4p and 96-7p. Id. He also

briefly summarized Mr. Davis’ testimony, and considered all

opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1527 and 416.927 and SSR’s 96-2p, 95-5p, 96-6p and 06-3p.

Id. The ALJ determined that it is reasonable to believe that Mr.

Davis’ “medically determinable impairments would cause the

alleged symptoms,” but that “his statements were not credible to

the extent that they are inconsistent with the residual

functional capacity assessment.” R. at 24. The ALJ supported his

16

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 16 of 38 PageID #:528
determination by addressing each of Mr. Davis’ medically

determinable impairments individually. 

In terms of Mr. Davis’ emphysema, the ALJ held that,

according to the medical records, Mr. Davis’ emphysema was

present at approximately the same level of severity prior to the

alleged onset date. R. at 26. He also noted that Mr. Davis had

been able to work despite his condition in the past, and opined

that this evidence suggested he could continue to work despite

his impairments. Id. The ALJ also determined that Mr. Davis’

emphysema was actually improving; he noted the records showing

that his lungs were clear of infiltrations, he had no pulmonary

restrictions and no active cardiopulmonary pathology. Id. The

ALJ also included environmental irritant limitations in the RFC

to accommodate Mr. Davis’ respiratory impairment. Id.

Additionally, the ALJ referenced a March 25, 2008, chest x-ray

showing that Mr. Davis’ lungs were clear and that his heart was a

normal size. Id.

With regard to Mr. Davis’ diabetes mellitus and high

cholesterol, the ALJ concluded that, with appropriate

accommodations for Mr. Davis’ diabetes, blurred vision and proper

medication, he would still be able to work at the medium

exertional level, even with the various limitations. R. at 27.

Specifically, to accommodate for Mr. Davis’ blurred 20/50 vision

17

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 17 of 38 PageID #:529
in each eye, he should be limited to occasional climbing of

ladders, ropes, scaffolds, ramps, or stairs. Id. 

Lastly, in considering Mr. Davis’ left shoulder pain, the

ALJ noted that the medical records showed a progression of

osteoarthritis of the left shoulder. Id. He included in his

assessment limitations on overhead reaching with the left (nondominant) hand, and determined that Mr. Davis would still be able

to perform at a medium exertional level with these limitations.

Id. 

For the most part, The ALJ adopted Dr. Palacci’s medical

opinion. R. at 28. However, he held that Mr. Davis was only

capable of standing, walking, and sitting for six hours per

workday instead of seven hours as Dr. Palacci opined. Id. The ALJ

explained that he gave less weight to the opinion of the nonexamining medical expert, Dr. John Cavanaugh, because Dr.

Cavanaugh’s opinion, that Mr. Davis was only capable of

performing “light exertional” work, was inconsistent with the

objective medical evidence, and contrary to the opinions of

previous medical examiners whose opinions were more consistent

with the medical records. R. at 28. 

At step four, after considering the testimony of the VE, the

ALJ determined that Mr. Davis’ impairments would unquestionably

preclude him from performing any of his past relevant work,

pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1565 and 416.965. 

18

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 18 of 38 PageID #:530
At step five, however, the ALJ found that there are other

jobs in the national economy that Mr. Davis would be capable and

qualified to perform given his work experience, education, age,

and residual functional capacity. R. at 28-29. Adopting the VE’s

determination that Mr. Davis would be able to perform jobs such

as a machine packager, a food service worker, and a hand

packager, the ALJ found Mr. Davis to be “not disabled.” R. at

29. The ALJ concluded, therefore, that Mr. Davis was not entitled

to social security benefits. 

On November 11, 2010, Mr. Davis submitted a request to the

Appeals Council for review of the ALJ’s final hearing decision.

R. at 15. The Appeals Council sent Mr. Davis a notice denying

his request for review on January 4, 2012 and, thus, affirmed the

ALJ’s decision as the final decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security. R. at 1. 

After the Appeals Council denied review, Mr. Davis filed a

civil lawsuit in this Court on February 21, 2012, seeking

judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s final

decision. Both parties consented to proceed before a Magistrate

Judge, and the case was reassigned to this Court on March 22,

2012. The case is now before this Court on cross motions for

summary judgment. Mr. Davis is asking the Court to enter summary

judgment in his favor, and reverse or remand the previous

19

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 19 of 38 PageID #:531
administrative decision for further proceedings. The Commissioner

seeks summary judgment affirming the agency’s decision.

VI. DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF DISABILITY ADJUDICATION

An individual claiming a need for DBI, SSI or DWB must prove

that he is disabled under the terms of the Social Security Act.

In determining whether an individual is eligible for benefits,

the social security regulations require a sequential five-step

analysis. First, the ALJ must determine if the claimant is

currently employed; second, he must determine whether the

claimant has a severe impairment; third, he must determine

whether the impairment meets or equals one of the impairments

listed by the Commissioner in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,

Appendix 1; fourth, the ALJ must determine the claimant's RFC,

and must evaluate whether the claimant can perform his past

relevant work; and fifth, the ALJ must decide whether the

claimant is capable of performing other work in the national

economy. At steps one through four, the claimant bears the burden

of proof; at step five, the burden shifts to the

Commissioner. Knight v. Chater, 55 F.3d 309, 313 (7th Cir. 1995).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court reviewing an ALJ's decision must affirm if

the decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free

from legal error. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Steele v. Barnhart, 290

20

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 20 of 38 PageID #:532
F.3d 936, 940 (7th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is “more than

a mere scintilla”; rather, it is “such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).

When reviewing the administrative record to determine if the

supporting evidence is substantial, the Court may not “reweigh

evidence, resolve conflicts, decide questions of credibility, or

substitute its own judgment for that of the Commissioner. Lopez

ex rel. Lopez v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 535, 539 (7th Cir. 2003). An

ALJ must articulate, at least minimally, his analysis of the

evidence so that the Court can follow his reasoning. Clifford v.

Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 870 (7th Cir. 2000). Where conflicting

evidence allows reasonable minds to differ, the responsibility

for determining whether a claimant is disabled falls upon the

Commissioner, not the district court. Herr v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d

178, 181 (7th Cir. 1990).

Although an ALJ is not required to address every piece of

evidence in the record, he must articulate his analysis by

building an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his

conclusions, thus allowing a reviewing court to conduct a

meaningful review of the ultimate findings of the Social Security

Administration. Sims v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 424, 429 (7th Cir.

2002); Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1176 (7th Cir. 2001). A

court must affirm the ALJ’s decision if there is substantial

21

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 21 of 38 PageID #:533
evidence supporting it, unless the ALJ does not articulate the

grounds for his decision in such a way that allows a meaningful

review. Sims, 309 F.3d at 429. The Court may affirm the

Commissioner’s decision only after a “critical review of the

evidence.” Lopez, 336 F.3d at 539. Where there is an error of

law, reversal is warranted irrespective of the volume of evidence

otherwise supporting the ALJ’s decision. Schmoll v. Harris, 636

F.2d 1146, 1150 (7th Cir. 1980). 

ANALYSIS 

Mr. Davis argues that the ALJ’s decision should be reversed

or remanded because the decision was not supported by substantial

evidence, and contained errors of law. He argues that the ALJ

rendered, (1) an improper RFC determination, and (2) an improper

credibility determination. These are the only two matters Mr.

Davis has raised before this Court, thus, any other disputes

pertaining to the subject are hereafter waived. Carter v. Astrue,

413 Fed. Appx. 899, 905 (7th Cir. 2011); Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390

F.3d 500, 505 (7th Cir. 2004); Schoenfeld v. Apfel, 237 F.3d 788,

793 (7th Cir. 2001); Shramek v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 809, 811 (7th

Cir. 2000). 

1. The ALJ’s RFC Determination

Mr. Davis asserts that the ALJ rendered an improper RFC

determination because he failed to establish a logical bridge

between the acknowledged impairments presented in the evidence,

22

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 22 of 38 PageID #:534
and the limitations incorporated in the RFC. An ALJ must build a

“logical bridge” from the evidence to his conclusions. Grove v.

Apfel, 148 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir. 1998). A decision that is

“unreasoned” or analytically inadequate cannot be upheld. Id. 

Specifically, Mr. Davis argues that there is no logical

bridge between the medical findings in the record that he

suffered from uncontrolled diabetes, and the ALJ’s restriction on

his ability to climb ladders, ropes, scaffolds, or ramps.

Although uncontrolled diabetes, by itself, may not always

necessitate these precise limitations, even Mr. Davis admits that

his diabetes causes symptoms of fatigue and pain. Naturally,

these symptoms would limit Mr. Davis’ ability to perform physical

activities such as climbing ladders, ropes, scaffolds, or ramps.

Additionally, Mr. Davis’ blurred vision would undoubtedly be an

additional encumbrance on performing such activities. Yet, even

with these limitations, Dr. Palacci concluded that Mr. Davis

would be able to work at a medium exertional level, and the ALJ

agreed that the identified restrictions were appropriate to

accommodate Mr. Davis’ diabetes and blurred vision. Therefore,

the ALJ has made a logical connection between the physical

symptoms of Mr. Davis’ uncontrolled diabetes, and the physical

limitations set forth in the RFC assessment. 

It was also reasonable for the ALJ to limit Mr. Davis to

occasional overhead reaching with his left, non-dominant arm.

23

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 23 of 38 PageID #:535
While it is true that Mr. Davis may experience some limitation in

shoulder motion in all directions, Dr. Ryan’s consultative

examination shows that Mr. Davis struggled predominately with

flexion and internal rotation of his left shoulder. R. at 347. 

Mr. Davis’ left shoulder extension was at 20o out of a possible

40o, his abduction 100o out of 150o, his adduction 30o out of

30o, and his external rotation 90o out of 90o. Id. However, the

flexion of his left shoulder, at 90o out of a possible 150o, and

his internal rotation at 10o out of 80o, showed significant range

of motion limitation. Id. The ALJ also mentioned that Mr. Davis

reported being able to perform overhead activity with occasional

difficulty during his consultative examination with Dr. Palacci.

R. at 25. He also stated that he never had physical therapy or

injections for his shoulder pain, although he did wear a sling

for 6 months. Id. The ALJ found it reasonable to accommodate for

Mr. Davis’ left shoulder limitations by limiting him to only

occasional reaching overhead in the RFC assessment. Id. 

Significantly, none of Mr. Davis’ treating or examining

physicians indicated that a limitation predominantly on overhead

reaching would be unsuited for accommodating Mr. Davis’

osteoarthritis. Additionally, Mr. Davis failed to specify any

potential employment position in which he would be required to

perform substantial reaching activities in any direction other

than overhead. The VE indicated that, with Mr. Davis’ age,

24

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 24 of 38 PageID #:536
education, work experience, and RFC, he would be able to perform

the occupational requirements for employment as a machine

packager, a food service worker, and a hand packager. R. at 74. 

Even if these employment positions require reaching in all

directions, according to Mr. Davis’ RFC results, he would likely

be able to perform such tasks without complication. Therefore,

it was logical for the ALJ to accommodate for Mr. Davis’ shoulder

limitation in the RFC assessment by limiting him to only

occasional overhead reaching, since there is no evidence in the

record, or otherwise, indicating that this accommodation would be

insufficient for the employment positions identified. 

It is true, as Mr. Davis argues, that the ALJ must “build a

logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.” But, when

analyzing an ALJ’s opinion for fatal “gaps” or contradictions,

courts tend to give the opinion a “commonsensical reading rather

than ‘nitpicking’ at it.” Shramek, 226 F.3d at 811. This

tendency is not only an attempt to facilitate an efficient and

effective judicial review process, but is also a part of a wellsettled precedent that, notwithstanding abuses of discretion or

errors of law, courts will give deference to administrative

agencies in the interpretation and implementation of their

policies. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council,

Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1984). The

ALJ in this case sufficiently built a “logical bridge,” and this

25

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 25 of 38 PageID #:537
Court is able to follow the evidence to his conclusion. Giles ex

rel. v. Astrue, 483 F.3d 483, 486 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Next, Mr. Davis argues that the ALJ rendered an improper RFC

determination because he gave controlling weight to Consultative

Examiner, Dr. Palacci, instead of the testifying Medical Expert,

Dr. Cavanaugh. The ALJ opined that, “[Dr. Palacci’s] medical

opinion is more consistent with the record as a whole.” R. at 28. 

The Social Security regulations require an ALJ to take each

opinion he receives under careful consideration. 20 C.F.R. §

404.1527(d), and 416.927(d). A statement made by a medical source

that an individual is “disabled” or “unable to work” is not a

definite determination of that individual’s disability status. 20

C.F.R § 404.1527. In the hierarchy of weighing medical opinions,

the regulations state that, generally, controlling weight is

given to the opinions of treating physicians so long as the

opinion is supported by the medical findings, and not

inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the

record. Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir.

2003); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). In Mr.

Davis’ case, none of his treating physicians have provided an

opinion about his ability to perform work-related activities.

However, the regulations also state that more weight will

generally be given to the opinion of an examining physician,

rather than a physician who has not examined the patient. 20

26

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 26 of 38 PageID #:538
C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), 416.927 (c)(1). Therefore, since Dr.

Palacci conducted a consultative examination of Mr. Davis, and

Dr. Cavanaugh formed his opinion solely from reviewing Mr. Davis’

medical records, it is reasonable for the ALJ to give Dr.

Palacci’s examining medical opinion more weight than that of the

testifying ME. 

As long as the ALJ minimally articulated his reasoning for

crediting or rejecting evidence of disability, his decision may

be upheld. Clifford, 227 F.3d at 871. In this case, the ALJ

clearly stated that his reason for discrediting the ME testimony

was because it was “inconsistent with the objective medical

evidence, and contradicts the contemporaneous consultative

examiner’s opinion which is more consistent with the record as a

whole.” Thus, he has met his burden of “minimally articulating”

his reasoning for giving one opinion more weight than another.

Skarbek, 390 F.3d at 503.

Additionally, after closely examining the ME’s testimony, it

appears to the Court that the inconsistent statements were likely

unintentional. The ME testified that Dr. Palacci concluded that

Mr. Davis was capable of performing only light exertional level

work, consisting of lifting 10 pounds frequently and 20 pounds

occasionally. R. at 66. However, Dr. Palacci’s assessment was

27

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 27 of 38 PageID #:539
actually consistent with “medium work” levels as defined in 20

C.F.R. § 404.1567(c).2

This seemingly insignificant numerical discrepancy must be

given adequate consideration because, under the Medical

Vocational Guidelines 202.01 and 202.02 (“the Grid”), Mr. Davis’

disability status turned on whether he could perform light or

medium exertional work. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2. The

Grid is a chart that classifies a claimant as disabled or not

disabled based on the claimant’s physical capacity, age,

education, and work experience. Walker v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 635,

640 (7th Cir. 1987). It was promulgated to simplify the process,

and improve the consistency, of disability determinations. Id. If

the use of the Grid is appropriate, the Secretary may rely upon

it for determining disability, and, in such a case, the Grid

alone constitutes substantial evidence sufficient to uphold the

decision of the Secretary. Id. The use of The Grid is a question

of fact, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s nonexertional impairments are severe enough to substantially limit

the claimant’s abilities. Id. at 641. Therefore, due to Mr.

Davis’ advance aged, limited education, and semi-skilled past

relevant work with no transferable skills to sedentary work, if

Mr. Davis were capable of only light work, he would be classified

2

 Medium work involves lifting no more than 50 pounds at a time, with

frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 pounds. 20

C.F.R. § 404.1567(c).

28

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 28 of 38 PageID #:540
as disabled under the Grid. On the other hand, if he were capable

of performing medium work, he would not automatically be

classified as disabled under the Grid, and additional

considerations would be necessary. 

As previously mentioned, Dr. Palacci’s assessment actually

stated that Mr. Davis was capable of lifting 10 pounds

continuously, 20 pounds frequently, 50 pounds occasionally, and

never more than 50 pounds. R. at 416. This, as Dr. Palacci

concluded, is consistent with a medium exertional level instead

of light, as the ME (mis)stated. Under these circumstances,

Medical Vocational Guidelines 203.11 and 203.12 would apply to

Mr. Davis’ case, and he would not be considered disabled for

social security disability purposes. 

Nothing in the medical evidence supports the ME’s conclusion

that Mr. Davis was only capable of lifting 10 pounds frequently,

and 20 pounds occasionally. In fact, Mr. Davis himself testified

that he is capable of lifting 30 to 40 pounds for short periods

of time, and indicated that he lifted 25 pounds frequently, and

as much as 75 pounds during his previous employment as a

warehouse supervisor. R. at 59, 209. 

After examining the medical record, and considering all of

the medical opinions, the ALJ adopted Dr. Palacci’s opinion that

Mr. Davis was capable of medium exertional work. R. at 28. When

the ME’s testimony is read in context, it appears that the ME

29

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 29 of 38 PageID #:541
actually intended to affirm Dr. Palacci’s opinion. R. at 66-67.

Thus, since it seems that the ME’s conclusion, that Mr. Davis was

only capable of light exertional work, is based on a

misinterpretation of Dr. Palacci’s opinion, and is unsupported by

any other evidence in the record, including Mr. Davis’ own

testimony, it was reasonable for the ALJ to give controlling

weight to Dr. Palacci’s consultative opinion instead of the ME’s

opinion. 

2. Credibility Determination 

In addition to analyzing the objective medical evidence in

the record, an ALJ must also consider the impairments or

restrictions a claimant says affect his daily activities, efforts

to work, or any other relevant matters that are not substantially

supported by medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(b). The ALJ

in this case stated: 

“After careful consideration of the evidence, the

undersigned finds that the claimant’s medically determinable

impairments could be expected to cause the alleged symptoms;

however, the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity,

persistence and limiting effect of these symptoms are not

credible to the extent that they are inconsistent with the

above residual functional capacity assessment.” R. at 24.

Although the use of this “opaque boilerplate” language in

making credibility determinations has been criticized by the

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, see Bjornson v. Astrue, 671

F.3d 640, 644 (7th Cir. 2012), the ALJ in this case did not stop

his analysis there. He went on to provide a detailed analysis of

30

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 30 of 38 PageID #:542
the evidence and medical conclusions drawn by each of the

physicians involved in Mr. Davis’ case. R. at 24-27. The ALJ’s

opinion must be detailed enough to “inform the reader in a

meaningful, reviewable way of the specific evidence the ALJ

considered in determining that claimant’s complaints were not

credible.” Bjornson, 671 F.3d at 645 (7th Cir.2012). While a

written evaluation of every piece of evidence in the record is

not required, an ALJ must at least clearly articulate his

assessment of the evidence to enable a reader to trace the path

of the ALJ's reasoning. Rohan v. Chater, 98 F.3d 966, 971 (7th

Cir. 1996). From reading the ALJ opinion, the reader must be

able to determine what weight the trier of fact gave the

claimant’s testimony. Bjornson, 671 F.3d at 645. 

The ALJ in this case did clearly articulate his assessment

of the evidence. Although he may not have had an elaborate

discussion of every intricate issue, “no principle of

administrative law or common sense requires us to remand a case

in quest of a perfect opinion unless there is reason to believe

that the remand might lead to a different result.” Fisher v.

Bowen, 869 F.2d 1055, 1057 (7th Cir. 1989) (Posner, J.) see also

S.E.C. v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943). In general, an ALJ’s

credibility determination is afforded special deference, because

the ALJ is in the best position to see and hear the witness and

determine credibility. Shramek, 226 F.3d at 811. As long as that

31

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 31 of 38 PageID #:543
determination is supported by substantial evidence and free of

legal error, reviewing courts will uphold the ALJ's

determination. 42 U.S.C. §405(g). 

The ALJ in this case concluded that Mr. Davis’ testimony was

only partially credible. R. at 27. He individually addressed each

of the inconsistencies in Mr. Davis’ testimony, such as the

claimed enlarged heart, elevated glucose levels, and, as

previously mentioned, the lifting capabilities. He acknowledged

that, although the inconsistent information may not have been

intentionally misleading, it did “suggest that the information

provided by the claimant generally may not be entirely reliable.”

R. at 27.

The ALJ then considered Mr. Davis’ daily activities, and his

claimed restrictions on such activities. R. at 27. Mr. Davis

testified that he lives alone and performs everyday tasks such as

cooking and performing light chores. R. at 62. However, due to

numbness and weakness in his left arm, he often needs assistance

from his family to help him with activities that require heavy

lifting, such as grocery shopping or doing laundry. R. at 62. The

ALJ also noted Mr. Davis’ visual restrictions, and specifically

noted that they have been accounted for in the RFC assessment. R.

at 27. 

While it is reasonable for Mr. Davis’ numerous medications

to cause at least some side effects, such as low energy or

32

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 32 of 38 PageID #:544
sleepiness, the ALJ pointed out that Mr. Davis failed to mention

these issues on numerous occasions both when he sought treatment

for his impairments, and when he received consultative

examinations from internal medicine physicians. R. at 27. Mr.

Davis’ failure to even mention these limitations suggests that

his side effects were not so severe that they would substantially

impact his ability to work. Finally, the ALJ discredited Mr.

Davis’ assertion that he could only stand between two and three

hours per day, noting that this limitation was unsupported by the

longitudinal record. R. at 27. Both Dr. Palacci and the ME

concluded that Mr. Davis could stand for longer that two to three

hours per day. R. at 25-26. Ultimately, the ALJ adopted the more

restrictive six-hour sitting and standing allowance proposed by

the ME, instead of seven hours as Dr. Palacci opined. R. at 28.

Nonetheless, even with limiting Mr. Davis’ ability to sit and

stand to only six hours, the ALJ still concluded that he would be

able to perform medium level exertional work. 

Additionally, Mr. Davis argues that the ALJ failed to factor

his obesity into his analysis. He argues that his obesity

contributes to his fatigue and his inability to sustain

exertional activities, and to meet the demands of competitive

employment. He argues that, because the ALJ neglected to

directly address this issue in his decision, he relied on

“illogical foundations” and the decision should be reversed or

33

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 33 of 38 PageID #:545
remanded. Mr. Davis does not explain how his alleged obesity

would have affected the ALJ's five-step analysis. Rather, he

suggests that the ALJ's failure to mention his obesity is reason

enough to remand the case. 

Mr. Davis is correct that Social Security Ruling 00–3p

requires an ALJ to consider the effects of obesity at several

points in the five-step sequential analysis. Skarbek, 390 F.3d at

504. And it is also true that obese individuals typically

experience additional limitations when performing exertional

functions. But Mr. Davis has never claimed obesity as an

impairment (in his disability application or at his hearing). 

And he never indicated that he experienced exertional

difficulties because of his weight. Mr. Davis bears the burden

to articulate how his alleged obesity limits his functioning and

exacerbates his impairment. Hisle v. Astrue, 258 F. App'x 33, 37

(7th Cir. 2007). In his testimony at the hearing, he noted that

his doctor had advised him to lose weight. R. at 46. But such a

suggestion is appropriate for diabetes patients, as well as for

obese patients. Nowhere else in the record does Mr. Davis (or

any doctor) mention weight as an impairment. 

Additionally, although references to a claimant’s weight in

the medical records may be enough to trigger the issue, Skarbek,

390 F.3d at 504, in Mr. Davis’ case, the issue is not clear cut. 

Mr. Davis argues that he was obese under the standards set forth

34

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 34 of 38 PageID #:546
by the National Institutes of Health. The standard states that a

BMI of more than 30.0 is obese, and a BMI of more than 40.0 is

“extreme obesity.” Standing at 6’1”, Mr. Davis would meet the

definition of obesity at approximately 228 pounds, which would

give him a BMI of 30.1.3 Mr. Davis testified that he weighed 246

pounds at the time of the hearing, which would have made his BMI

32.5.4

 However, throughout the medical record, Mr. Davis’ weight

fluctuated between 224 and 243 pounds. At the time of Dr.

Palacci’s consultative examination, Mr. Davis weighed 224 pounds,

which would have put him under the obesity threshold with a BMI

of 29.6.5 Given that his weight was, at best, on the threshold,

the Court cannot fault the ALJ for failing to focus on obesity.

In Prochaska v. Barnhart, the claimant argued that the ALJ

ignored the effect of her “documented obesity on her

osteoarthritis in both knees and acute spasmodic back pain,” when

he should have recognized that her obesity, in tandem with her

diagnosed back impairment, created a disability. Prochaska v.

Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731, 736 (7th Cir. 2006). In particular, she

argued that the ALJ violated Social Security Ruling 02–1p, which

states that the adjudicator “will do an individualized assessment

of the impact of obesity on an individual's functioning when

deciding whether the impairment is severe.” SSR 02–1p. Id. The

3

 Calculation by: nhlbisupport.com/bmi/

4

 Calculation by: nhlbisupport.com/bmi/

5 Id.

35

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 35 of 38 PageID #:547
Seventh Circuit held that failure to explicitly address the

claimant’s obesity may be considered “harmless error” where the

ALJ both adopted “the limitations suggested by the specialists

and reviewing doctors who were aware of the condition” and the

claimant failed to “specify how [his] obesity further impaired

[his] ability to work.” Prochaska, 454 F.3d at 736-37. The case

is directly on point.

In Mr. Davis’ case, the ALJ stated that he reviewed all of

the medical evidence and ultimately adopted Dr. Palacci’s medical

opinion to make his decision. R. at 28. That opinion was given

when Mr. Davis weighed 224 lbs. – he was not obese then, though

he was overweight. This evidence, together with the lack of any

real focus on weight or obesity, explains why the ALJ failed to

discuss obesity. That was reasonable under the circumstances. 

Finally, Mr. Davis indicated both in his testimony at the

hearing, and in his hand-written letter to the ALJ, that he has

consistently sought employment even after filing for social

security disability benefits. R. at 51, 283. At the hearing he

stated, “I’ve tried to find a job, but never found one,” and in

his letter he wrote “since my denial, I have tried [to find

employment] for a year now with no success.” Id. Although this

is unfortunate, this testimony suggests that the ALJ’s decision

of non-disability is supported by substantial evidence. Social

security disability benefits are reserved for those who are

36

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 36 of 38 PageID #:548
unable to engage in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §

404.1520(a) and 416.920(a). The fact that Mr. Davis thinks he

can work – as evidenced by the fact that he is actually looking

for work – is strong evidence that he can work. The fact that Mr.

Davis sought employment after filing for social security

disability benefits strongly suggests that, even he believed he

was capable of engaging in substantial gainful activity. In

short, by his own admission, he was out of work, not because he

was unable to work, but because he was unable to find a job.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the

ALJ’s RFC and credibility determinations were supported by

substantial evidence and that his decision is otherwise free from

legal error. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s final decision

denying Mr. Davis social security disability benefits is

affirmed. The Court grants the Commissioner’s motion for summary

judgment [Docket #15] and denies Mr. Davis’ motion for summary

judgment [Docket #13]. 

Date: April 30, 2013

E N T E R

E D:

_________________________________

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARLANDER KEYS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

37

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 37 of 38 PageID #:549
1. Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security

on February 14, 2013, and is, therefore, substituted for Michael J.

Astrue who served as Commissioner when this case was filed. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1).

38

Case: 1:12-cv-01225 Document #: 19 Filed: 04/30/13 Page 38 of 38 PageID #:550