NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Argued July 7, 2017 

Decided August 10, 2017 

Before 

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge 

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge 

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge 

No. 16-4028 

SANDRA SIKORSKI, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. 

No. 15 C 2178 

Sheila Finnegan, 

Magistrate Judge.

O R D E R 

 Sandra Sikorski, a 52-year old who suffers from Crohn’s disease, obesity, 

depression, and degenerative joint disease in her neck, appeals the district court’s 

judgment upholding the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. An 

administrative law judge found that, despite her impairments, she retained the residual 

functional capacity to perform her past work as a shipping checker. In reaching this 

conclusion, however, the ALJ did not make sufficient factual findings about the length 

of time that Sikorski, who struggled with diarrhea as a result of her Crohn’s disease, 

needed for bathroom visits. Because we cannot evaluate whether the ALJ accounted for 
No. 16-4028 Page 2 

all of the necessary limitations on her ability to work, we reverse and remand for 

further proceedings. 

In 2011 Sikorski applied for disability insurance benefits based on her 

Crohn’s disease and a litany of other ailments (bulging discs in her neck, arthritis in her 

knees and hands, attention-deficit disorder, and depression) that, she said, rendered her 

unable to work. Sikorski, a high school graduate, previously worked as a part-time 

collection-agency agent (1997–1998), a full-time customer service representative/ 

shipping checker for a warehouse (2005–2007), and most recently a part-time customer 

service representative for a repair and towing company (2008–2009). 

 Sikorski’s medical records date back to 2005, when she was hospitalized because 

of abdominal pain and an irritated gallbladder and diagnosed with Crohn’s disease. 

(She said at that time that she already had suffered from Crohn’s disease for 16 years.) 

About two weeks after being discharged, she developed a complete obstruction in one 

part of her colon, necessitating what she described as a colon resection. Sikorski said 

that after this procedure, her diarrhea symptoms “steadily seemed to have gotten a little 

bit worse.” Her frequent bowel movements became such a significant problem that in 

2007 she had to leave her warehouse job; her need to go to the bathroom so often, she 

said, made it not “worth it” to work full-time. 

 Over the next four years, Sikorski had continued physical difficulties. In 2008 her 

gallbladder had to be removed and in 2010 she struggled with neck pain (caused by 

herniated disks in her lower neck and a painful condition of compressed nerves in her 

spine) and said that she could no longer work. In 2011 she aggravated her neck pain 

after a fall, for which she received anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving drugs. 

Meanwhile her Crohn’s disease worsened. She returned in mid-2011 to the office 

of her treating physician, Dr. Nader Aziz, whose staff reported that she had “constant 

pain and diarrhea” and that she needed six to nine bathroom visits during the day. She 

was prescribed Apriso, a drug that reduces swelling in the colon. At this appointment, 

she also was assessed as having attention-deficit disorder (it is not clear from the 

treatment records what led to this determination) and received a prescription for 

Vyvanse, a central nervous stimulant, to help her focus her attention. 

In the fall of 2011, she was evaluated by several doctors in connection with her 

application for disability benefits and found to have mild mental and physical 

limitations. She was first examined by an internal medicine physician, who determined 
No. 16-4028 Page 3 

that she had mild tenderness in her neck and abdomen and reported that she had 

diarrhea eight to ten times per day. She then met with a psychologist, who ruled out 

attention-deficit disorder and deficits in her cognitive abilities, but assessed her as 

having “some periods of [depression] related to gastrointestinal problems.” Sikorski 

next visited a psychiatrist, who concluded that her attention deficit hyperactivity 

disorder did not create a “severe impairment” and caused only “[m]ild” restrictions in 

activities of daily living and “[m]ild” difficulties in social functioning and maintaining 

concentration. She finally was seen by another doctor, who assessed her physical 

limitations and determined that she could frequently lift or carry 25 pounds, could sit, 

stand, or walk for “about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday,” and required no restrictions 

on what she could push or pull. 

In late 2011 the Social Security Administration denied Sikorski’s disability 

application. She requested reconsideration. 

 Over the next year, Sikorski continued to report diarrhea and intermittent 

abdominal pain caused by her Crohn’s disease. She also had bouts with depression. 

 

 At her hearing before an administrative law judge in 2013, Sikorski testified 

about her continuing difficulties relating to her Crohn’s disease and other conditions. 

She testified that despite trying six different medications, her Crohn’s disease still gave 

her stomach pain and made her have six to nine sudden episodes of diarrhea each day, 

requiring bathroom visits of five to ten minutes. She said that her diarrhea began 

getting worse before her colon surgery in 2005 and became progressively more frequent 

between 2003 and 2013. She also testified about her neck pain, which she described as a 

“constant dull” pain that is “tolerable,” and her knee pain, which prevented her from 

walking more than a block. Regarding her depression, she reported that she was taking 

two prescriptions and had seen a psychologist for about a year. 

 The ALJ then questioned an impartial medical expert, a clinical psychologist, 

who testified that Sikorski’s major depressive and attention deficit disorders were not 

severe impairments and created only mild limitations on her activities of daily living, 

social functioning, and concentration. 

The ALJ asked a vocational expert to consider the possible employment 

opportunities for a person of Sikorski’s age, education, work experience, and particular 

physical limitations (who could not climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and must only 

occasionally climb ramps or stairs, stoop, balance, crouch, crawl, or kneel), and the VE 
No. 16-4028 Page 4 

concluded that this person could perform Sikorski’s last full-time job as a shipping 

checker. When the ALJ added the limitation that this person’s work station must be “in 

proximity to a restroom,” the VE responded that the question was “difficult to answer” 

because he could not generalize about the location of bathrooms for shipping checker 

and other jobs. The VE testified that employees generally were allowed five-minute 

bathroom breaks every two hours but that a person requiring ten-minute breaks would 

not be able to find “competitive work.” 

 The ALJ applied the five-step analysis in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4), and found 

Sikorski not disabled. The ALJ determined that she had not engaged in substantial 

gainful activity since the alleged onset date of April 1, 2010 (step one); that her Crohn’s 

disease, degenerative joint disease in her cervical spine, and her obesity were severe 

impairments (step two); that these impairments did not equal a listed impairment 

(step three); that she had the residual functional capacity to perform light work, with 

the limitations of only occasionally climbing stairs, ramps, balancing, crouching, 

crawling, stooping, or kneeling and never climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; and that 

she could perform her past job as a shipping checker (step four). 

In determining Sikorski’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ found her 

testimony about the severity of her impairments “not entirely credible.” Regarding 

Sikorski’s “neck symptoms,” the ALJ determined that the treatment records justified 

only the light-work restriction that was included in the RFC. The ALJ then noted that 

flare-ups of her Crohn’s disease (besides her diarrhea) were not well-documented and 

underscored that Sikorski was able to work in 2005, when her Crohn’s disease 

symptoms were worse. Finally, to support the omission of mental limitations from the 

RFC, the ALJ pointed to the psychiatrist’s assessment that Sikorski’s mental condition 

caused only mild restrictions on her activities of daily living. 

The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision 

of the Commissioner. See Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 2015). 

A magistrate judge, presiding by consent, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), upheld the 

ALJ’s decision. In the magistrate judge’s view, the ALJ provided “minimal” but 

sufficient analysis of the severity of Sikorski’s mental impairments and did not ignore 

any relevant evidence of her Crohn’s disease. The magistrate judge emphasized that the 

ALJ’s RFC assessment was “more restrictive than any of the limitations imposed by the 

physicians of record” and concluded that the RFC reasonably reflected the evidence in 

record. 
No. 16-4028 Page 5 

On appeal Sikorski argues that the ALJ improperly disregarded her bathroomrelated limitations in determining that she could work. According to Sikorski, the ALJ 

erred by not imposing a restriction in the RFC to accommodate her need to use the 

restroom six to nine times per day—requiring breaks of five to ten minutes apiece. She 

highlights the VE’s testimony that a person requiring 10-minute bathroom breaks 

would not be employable full-time. She also contends that the ALJ overlooked her 

documentation that she struggled with Crohn’s disease persistently and not only when 

the condition flared up. 

Our concern with the ALJ’s assessment is that she did not adequately justify her 

conclusion that Sikorski could perform her past work. The ALJ did not resolve whether 

Sikorski’s bathroom visits required five minutes, a duration that the VE said employers 

generally accommodate, or ten minutes, which the VE testified would render her 

unemployable. If she required six ten-minute breaks during the workday, then she 

would need to be away from her workstation for one hour; on the other hand, if she 

went to the bathroom before and after work and required only five-minute visits, she 

might need only three five-minute breaks during work hours, and normal work breaks 

could allow her to take care of her bathroom needs. The government counters that the 

ALJ was not required to decide this factual issue or adopt a limitation to address 

Sikorski’s bathroom needs because she managed to work for several years as a shipping 

checker despite her diarrhea symptoms. But the record of her past work does not reflect 

whether her employer was forgiving by making an exception to allow her lengthy 

bathroom breaks. Moreover Sikorski testified at the hearing that her need during her 

shipping-checker job to spend significant time in the bathroom caused her to leave this 

job. The ALJ made no finding regarding the required length of her bathroom visits, and 

we cannot speculate on facts not contained in the record. See Murphy v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 

811, 815 (7th Cir. 2014). Because we cannot be confident that the ALJ provided the 

vocational expert with a “complete picture” of Sikorski’s RFC, Id. at 820, we remand 

this case so that the ALJ may engage in further factfinding on this matter. 

Sikorski also challenges the ALJ’s adverse-credibility finding and conclusion that 

her mental impairments were not severe. Because we have decided that the ALJ based 

her RFC determination on inadequate consideration of Sikorski’s bathroom needs, we 

need not evaluate her arguments on these other matters. On remand the ALJ may need 

to take a fresh look at these matters in assessing Sikorski’s ability to work. 

Accordingly we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent 

with this opinion.