# United States Court of App eals For t he Sevent h C ir

c uit C hic a go ,I lli nois 6 0 6 0 4 A rgued June 10, 20 09 Deci ded J une 16, 20 09 B efo re IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e T E R E N C E T . E V A N S, Cir cu i tJudg e
N o. 08- 3833 SU Z A N N E L . B R IH N , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant

v. M I CHAEL J
. AS TR UE, D efend a nt-A pp ellee. A p p eal from the U nited States D istri ct C ou rt f o r the W es te r n Di st r i cto fW i sc o ns i n. N o. 3: 08- cv- 0024 6-bbc B arb ar a B . C ra b b , C hief Ju dg e. OR D ER Suzanne Bri hn chal l enges the So ci alS ecuri ty A dm i ni str ati on’ s dete rm i nati on that she i s no t di sabl ed. Tw o previ ous AL J s had co ncl ud ed that, tho ugh she suffer ed fro m fibr o m y al g i a, s he was no t di sabl ed; whenBr i hn as k ed th e Appeal s Cou nc i lt o r ev i ew the se co nd de ci si o n, the a dm i ni st r at i ve r ec o r d was l o st, s o the Co unc i lv ac at ed th atr ul i nga nd o r de r e d a thi r d h e a r i ng, fr o m whi c h thi s a pp e a li s t a k e n. B r i hna r g ue s tha tthe ALJe r r e d, fi r st, b y f av o r i ngthe o pi ni o n o fthe i nde pen den t m edi ca le xpe r t o ve r tha t o fhe r e xa m i ni ng physi ci an; se cond, bydoubti ng hercr edibi l i ty base d on heracc ount o fherdai l y a cti vi ti es; an d thi r d, b y s uppo r tinghe r c o nc l us i o ns wi thr efer en ce s to e vi den ce c i te d i n the p r e v i o u s l y v a c a t e d d e c i s i o n . We a ffi r m. 

### NO NPRE CE DE NT IAL D ISP OSIT ION Tobec ite d only

in ac c orda

nc ewith Fe d. R. App. P. 32.1N o. 08
- 3833 Page 2 B a c kg r o und Br i hn wor k ed as a c o o ka t a nur singho m e an d a s a ho m e he al tha i de be f o r e l ea ving the l aborf or ce in 199 3 due to f ati gue, weakness, and pai n. The r eco rd does notdocum ent a p h ys icia n vis it u n til 19 95 , w h en B rih n w as refe rre d to D r. C on ra d B u tw in ick, a rheum ato l ogi st, wh o thought Bri hn’s sym ptom s s ugges ted fibro m yal gi a. Dr. Butw i ni ck tes ted Brihn f orthe tender poi nts c hara cter i sti c o fthatco nd i ti on; fi nd i ng tho se poi nts prese nt, he di agno sed herwith fibro m yal gi a, ev en tho ugh the re st ofherphysi calexam w as unrem ar kabl e. The f ol l owing yea r, i n 199 6, Bri hn’s att or ney wrot e Dr. Butw i ni ck ask i ng hi m to evaluate Bri hn’s condi ti on. Dr. Butw i ni ck re pli ed that Bri hn suffer ed fro m f ati gue, di srupt ed sl ee p, a nd wi des pr ea d pa i n; he a l so no te d tha t Br i hn “a dm i tt ed to fee l i ng depresse d” and that “[ t] here was so m e m i norco gni ti ve i m pai rm ent. ” H e ca uti oned that B rihn sh ou ld at m ost occa sionally carry, bend , cli m b, craw l, squ at, pu sh, pu ll, and l ift obj ects o fany w ei ght a nd advi sed thatshe coul d si t forup to f our hours i n a work day, sta nd f orup to tw o, and w al k forup to thre e. In a 2 001 f ol l ow-up l ett er, Dr. Butw i ni ck m odi fi ed hi s r eco m m ended li m i tat i ons, expl ai ni ng tha t hi s e ar l i eras ses sm ents re fl ecte d B rih n ’s b es t-c as e fu n c tio n al c ap ac ity , w h ich sh e re aliz ed p er h ap s 1 0% of th e t im e. Gen er al l y, Dr
. But wi ni ckc l ar i fi ed, Br i hn was i nc apabl e o fc l i m bing, c r awl i ng, o r s qua tt i ng and coul d si t foro nl y tw o hours i n a work day and sta nd o r w al k foro nl y o ne. B r i h n fi r s ta p p l i e d f o r d i s ab i l i t y i n s u r a n c e b e n e fi t s i n 1 9 9 6 , a n A L J d e n i e d h e r c l a i m, an d th e A p p ea ls C ou n c il d ec lin ed rev iew
. W e a ffirm ed
. B rihn v. A pfel , 20 00 W L 12776 28 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( unp ubl i shed or der)
. Brihn re appli ed f orbene fi ts i n 200 1, but that cl ai m was al so de ni ed. Br i hn ag ain a sk ed th e Appeal s Cou nc i lt o r ev i ew he r c as e, b utthe adm i ni str ati ve re cor d w as l ost, and the Councilacc or dingl y o rder ed a new hear i ng. A t herm ostr ecenthear i ng be f or e a n A LJ in 200 7, Bri hn tes ti fi ed that si nce 1 997 (w he n th e A L J foun d her not disab led) she had difficulty su stainin g any activity f or m ore th ana few mi nut es b ec au se o fpa i n a nd f at i g ue . Herpa i n wo r se ne d b etwee n 1 99 7 an d 19 98 , s he c o nt i nue d, a nd was s o m et i m es s o i nt en se tha t sh e co ul d no t to l er at e be i ng to uch ed. S he a l so t es ti fi ed th ats he e xpe r i en ce d s pas m s th atpr ev en te d he r fr o m s l ee pi ng and caused herto dro p obj ects . Nonethel ess , Brihn tol d the AL J, she typi cal l y pr epare d her chi l dren f orscho ol, pi cked up ar ound the house and w ashed di shes, di d l aund rywith a s s i s t a nc e , s ho pp e d fo r g r o c e r i e s ( s o meo ne e l s e h a d t o c a r r y h e r p ur c ha s e s ) , a nd ma de d in n er , alth ou gh sh e n ot ed th at m ak in g e ve n a sim p le m ea l m igh t t ak e h er ov er an h ou r. Bri hn add ed that she was o ften for get ful and needed to nap tw i ce m ostdays. Forr eas ons not re fl ecte d i n the re cor d, the AL J br ought i n an i m parti alm edi cal expert, Dr. A nd re w S teiner, to ev al uate w hetherBri hn’s m edi calr eco rds e stabl i shed herN o. 08
- 3833 Page 3

pu rpor ted i m pai rm ents. Dr. S teiner thought they did not
. He note d, f orexam ple , that th ere w as no record of an y cogn iti ve or psy ch iatri c test to su p p ort D r. Bu tw inick’s con clusion that Brihn suffered from a cognitive im p airm en t and de p ression— ind eed there w ere no m ed ical record s w ha tsoev er pert aining to th ese con d iti ons , beyon d Dr. B u tw in ick ’s le tt er s t o c ou n se l. B rih n ’s c om p lain t o f m u sc le w ea kn es s w as sim ilar ly unsubstanti ate d i n the re cor d, as ther e was no evi dence thatshe had und er gone st re ngth tes ti ng ( to evaluate her i m pai rm ent) o r been presc ribed an e xerci se re gi m e ( to counter act atr ophy)
. On the othe r hand , Dr. S teiner conceded thatBri hn’s heavyuse ofthe pai nki l l er U ltram sugg ested that she ex p erience d a high level of pain. A lli n all, accord ing to D r. St ei ner, the m edi calr eco rd es tabl i shed that Bri hn shoul d not use herhands and l egs co nt i nuo us l y, b utc o ul d pe r f o r m a l l o th era ct i vi ti es wi th o utr es tr i ct i o n. Th e ALJ, a c c e pt i ngi n pa r tDr
. S t e i ne r ’ s v i e w o fBr i hn ’ s l i mi t a t i o ns , a s k e d a voca ti onalexper t whether ther e were j obs f ora hypotheti calper son w ho co uld l i ft 1 0 po unds fr eque nt l y a nd 2 0 o cc as i o na l l y, s i t f o r t wo h o ur s ea chwor k day, a nd s pen d the re m ai nd ersi tting o r w al ki ng. The AL J al so i ncor pora ted i nto her query re str i cti ons on frequ en t repe titi ve leg and arm activiti es. For a p erson so l im ited, the V E conc lud ed , there exi ste d 4, 400 j obs i n the sta te ofW i sco nsi n, i ncl ud i ng f acto ryl abor erand offi ce a ssi sta nt. T h e A L J p er for m ed th e re q u isit e fiv e-s te p an aly sis , see 20 C.F
. R. §§ 40 4. 1520 , 41 6. 920, co nc l udi ngtha t Br i hn was no t di sabl ed be ca us e appr o pr i at e j o bs wer e av ai l ab l e to he r . T he AL J f o und tha t Br i hn ha d no t en g ag ed i n g ainfulwor ka ct i vi tys i nc e th e i ss ua nc e o fthe fi rs t AL J deci si on ( ste p one) ; thatshe had a se ver e co m bi nati on o fi m pai rm ents, nam el y, fibro m yal gi a a nd r esi du aldam age fro m knee sur ger y ( ste p tw o) ; thatbec ause ther e was l i ttl e e vi dence ofo bj ecti ve m edi calchange s with re gar d to j oi nt and m uscl e functi oni ng, these i m pai rm ents did notm atch any l i ste d i n 20 C.F
. R. pt. 40 4, subpt. P, app. 1 ( ste p th r ee ) ; tha t al th o ug h Br i hn su ffer ed fr o m i m pai r m en ts a nd c o ul d no t do he r pa stwor k, s he ha d s uffi ci en t r es i dualfunc ti o na l c apa ci tyt o do a j o b r equi r i ngs o m e si tt i ng, s ta ndi nga nd liftin g of u p to 20 p ou n d s (s te p fou r); an d th at a p er so n w ith th os e lim ita tio n s c ou ld st ill w ork (step five). The Appea l s Cou nc i l de ni ed r ev i ew, a nd the di st r i ctc o ur t affi r m ed th e Com m i ssi oner ’ s r uling. A n alysis Bri hn prese nts three chal l enges to the A LJ’ s deci si on, wh i ch w e r evi ew defer enti al l y, as kin g on ly w h eth er su b st an tia l ev id en c e s u p p or te d th e A L J’s c on c lu sio n s. O ve r m an v. Ast r ue, 546 F.3d 456 , 462 (7th C ir. 2008).N o. 08
- 3833 Page 4

1 . Examining Physi ci an’s O pinio n B rihn argu es th at th e A L J w as obliged to give con troll ing w eight to D r. Bu tw inick’s opi ni ons and i m perm i ssibl y f avo re d D r. S teiner’ s v i ew . In part i cul ar, Bri hn subm i ts that the AL J was re quir ed at ste p tw o to add depres si on a nd co gni ti ve i m pai rm ent t o her l i st of im p air m en ts be c au se D r. B u tw in ick co n c lu d ed th atsh e s u ffer ed from th os e c on d itio n s. The A LJ was ent i tl ed to ag re e with Dr. S teiner that, i n the abse nce o fo bj ecti ve m edi calo r psychi atr i c fi nd i ngs o r descri pti ons, the re cor d did not est abl i sh any m ental im p air m en t. A n A L J m u st giv e c on tr ollin g w eig h t t o a tre at in g p h ys icia n ’s o p in ion “o n ly w h en it is w ell-s u p p or te d by m ed ica lly ac c ep ta b le c lin ica l an d lab or at or y d iag n os tic techni ques and i s co nsi ste nt with substa nti alev i dence i n the re cor d.” Ket e l b oe t e rv. As t r ue, 55 0 F .3d 62 0, 62 5 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ) (int er n al q u ot at ion s o m itt ed ); see 20 C
. F.R. § 404.1527(d )( 2); SS R 96- 2p. YetDr. Butw i ni ck’ s o pini ons re gar ding Bri hn’s pu rpor ted m entali m pai rm ents wer e ne i th ers uppo r te d wi thmedi ca l l y a cc ept ab l e di agno st i c te ch ni que s no r c o ns i st en t w ith su bsta nt ialeviden ce in the record
. Th e only hints i n th e ent ire ad m inistrative record th at B rihn su ffered from de p ression or cogn iti ve im p airm en t are D r. Bu tw inick’s st at ement s th atBr i hn su ffer ed fr o m s o m e uns pec i fi ed co gni ti ve i m pai r m en t an d tha t sh e “adm i tte d to feel i ng depres sed” a nd Bri hn’s own te sti m ony that she was f or get ful and had a d iffi cu lt ti m e focusin g. A clai m an t’s des cription of he r ow n sym p tom s are not, how ever, en o ug h t o e st ab l i sha n i m pai r m en t, s ee 20 C
. F.R. § 404.1508, 404.1528, an d Dr. Bu tw inick’s ev alu at ion of h er co gn itiv e a b ilitie s w as n otgro u n d ed in a n y m ed ica lly ac c ep ta b le diagnost i c te chniques. Br i hnfur the r i ns i s t s tha tDr
. Bu t wi ni c k ’ s di a g no s i s o ffib r o mya l g i a r e qu i r e d the ALJ to de te r m i ne tha t sh e su ffer ed fr o m de pr es si o n a nd c o g ni ti ve i m pai r m en t—co ndi ti o ns s he c laim s a re rela te d to fibro m ya lgia
. B u t a s t h e C om m iss ion er p oin ts ou t, B rih n forfe ite d th is ar gum ent b y no t m aking i t fi rs t t o the AL J
. In any eve nt, ther e i s no thi ng i n the re cor d to su ppo r t he r c o nt en ti o n tha t a fibr o m y al g i a di agno si s i s i ts el fs uffi ci en t to e st ab l i shthe prese nce o fa m entali m pai rm ent. 2. R esid u al Fu n ctiona l C ap acity Bri hn al so ar gues that the AL J co m m i tte d tw o er ro rs i n herst ep-four deter m i nati on of B rih n ’s re sid u al fu n c tio n al c ap ac ity
. Fir st, sh e c on te n d s t h at th e A L J im p er m iss ibly f ai l ed to t ak e i nt o a cc o unthe r ment ali m pai r m en ts . Notwi th st an di ngthe a dve r se fi ndi ng at st ep tw o, B rih n arg u es th at th e A L J err ed by n otas se ss in g h er m en ta l im p air m en ts , in viol ation of 20 C.F. R
. § 404.1545(a)(2) , w hich requ ires an A L J to con side r al l of a claim an t’s m edi ca l l y de te r m i nabl e i m pai r m en ts , i nc l udi ngtho se tha t ar e no t se ve r e. T hi s ar g um en t m isap p rehe nd s the A L J’ s step -tw o ana lysi s: th e A L J d eterm ined not j us t tha t B rihn’sN o. 08
- 3833 Page 5

m en ta l im p air m en ts w er e n otse ve re , bu t t h at th ey w er e n otev en m ed ica lly d et er m in ab le. A n A LJ has no obl i gat i on t o disc uss r esi du alfuncti onalcapaci ty i n l i ght o fi m pai rm ents th at are n otm ed ica lly es ta b lish ed
. See 20 C .F.R . § 40 4.1 54 5(a )(2) ; Vil l ano v. As t r ue, 55 6 F
. 3d 558, 563 (7th C ir. 2009). N ext Brihn conte nd s that the A LJ inapp ro pri ate l y di scr edi ted herbas ed on her acco unt ofherabi l i ty to perf or m house hol d chore s. S he adds thatthe A LJ i gnor ed the f act that she t oo k l ar ge doses ofpai nki l l er s. The A LJ’ s cr edibi l i ty evaluati on was notcl ear l y incor re ct. AL J s m ust s ubstanti ate thei r cre dibi l i ty fi nd i ngs with speci fi c and l ogi calr eas ons, bas ed on the r eco rd as a w hol e, Gil e s ex re l
. Gi l e s v. As t r ue, 48 3 F
. 3d 483, 48 8- 89 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , and shoul d consi der s uch factors as obj ective m ed ical evid en ce; the claim an t’s da il y activiti es; th e clai m an t’s tr ea tm en t h ist or y; an d th e t yp e, d os ag e, an d sid e e ffec ts of an y m ed ica tio n s, see 20 C. F
. R. § 4 04. 1529 ( c)
. I t i s t rue that Z ura w ski v. Ha lter, 24 5 F
. 3d 881, 88 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) hel d that acti vi ti es m uch l i ke Bri hn’s ( i ncl ud i ng pre pari ng chi l dren f orscho ol, co oking m eal s, c lea n in g u p th e h ou se , sh op p in g, an d d oin g la u n d ry an d d ish es ) d o n otn ec es sa rily und er m i ne a cl ai m o fdi sabl i ng pai n. And the A LJ s houl d have m enti oned al lo fthe drugs th at B rih n to ok, no t jus t U ltr am . See 20 C.F
. R. § 404. 1529 ( c)
. But the A LJ o ffer ed other speci fi c r eas ons f ordi sbel i evi ng Brihn’s acco unt: ther e was l i ttl e obj ecti ve m edi calev i dence ( e. g. , no re cor d ofm uscl e a tr ophy) , and Bri hn’s spars e t re atm ent hi sto ry — onl y four vi si ts to D r. B u tw in ick in s ix ye ar s— se em ed inc on sis te n t w ith d isa b ility
. 3. Non-R ecor d Evi den ce Br i hna l s o c o nt e nd s tha tthe ALJwe nto ut s i de the r e c o r d, i n v i o l a t i o n o f4 2 U. S
. C. §4 05 ( b) a nd 20 C. F
. R. § 4 04
. 95 3( a) , whens he c i te d the pr ev i o us a dm i ni st r at i ve de ci si o n, whi chwas v ac at ed bythe Appea l s Cou nc i la fte r the a dm i ni st r at i ve r ec o r d was l o st . T he A LJ tw i ce r efer enced ev i dence fro m the pri orhear i ng. F i rs t, the A LJ invoke d the e ar l i er dec i si o n t o s uppo r t he r s te p- two de te r m i na ti o n tha t Br i hn ha d no t es tabl i sh ed th ats he suffer s fro m depres si on o r othe r cogni ti ve i ssues : A l though the r eco rd with r espectto the J anuary20 03 deci si on in thi s ca se cannot be l oca ted, the J anuary20 03 deci si on ind i cate s that the Di sabi l i ty Deter m i nati on S er vi ces ( DD S) psycho l ogi calco nsul tants al so deter m i ned that dur i ngthe pe r i o d fr o m S ept embe r 1 99 7 to De ce m be r 3 1, 1 99 8 th e cl ai m an t was no t su bj ec t to a medi ca l l y de te r m i nabl e m en ta li m pai r m en t. T he und er si gned gi ves thei r opi ni on g re at w ei ght, bec ause i t i s co nsi ste nt with the o v e r a l l e v i de nc e o fr e c o r d.N o. 08
- 3833 Page 6

Se cond, i n decl i ni ng to r educe herst ep-four ass ess m ent o fBri hn’s re si du alfuncti onal cap acity, th e A L J observ ed that “the opinion of th e D isabil ity Dete rm ination Services (D D S) m ed ica l co n su lta n ts , w h o lim ite d th e c laim an t t o w or k a t t h e ligh t e x er tio n al lev el, is ess enti al l y c onsi ste nt with the above r esi du alfuncti onalcapaci ty. Thei r opi ni on i s r efer re d to in t h e Se p te m b er 20 03 A d m in ist ra tiv e L aw Ju d ge d ec isio n .” B rih n is co rre c t t h at cit in g e vid en c e n otin t h e c u rre n t re c or d w as an err or , see 42 U .S.C . §40 5(b ); 20 C .F.R . § 40 4.9 53 (a); Yang v. Shalala , 22 F .3d 91 3, 21 7 (9 th C ir. 19 94 ), bu t it is not one th at req uires rem an d
. Th is outsid e evide nc e w as bu t one of m an y factors consi dered bythe A LJ, i ncl ud i ng Dr. S teiner’ s o pini on a nd the l ack ofm edi calo r psychi atr i c ev al uati ons. Even without those ci tat i ons, the A LJ’ s deci si on would have bee n we l l

- s up po r t e d. Br i hn al so a r g ue s, c o nfus i ng l y, tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t sh o ul d ha ve o r der ed th e C om m iss ion er to rec on sid er h er ca se in ligh t o f u n sp ec ified ev id en c e fro m th e los t re c or d
. Se ntence si x of42 U
. S. C. § 4 05( g) autho ri zes a dist ri ct j ud ge to re m and a cas e t o the S oci al Se curi ty A dm i ni str ati on i f1) the cl ai m ant pr ese nts ne w , m ate ri alev i dence thatwas not i ncor pora ted i nto the pr evi ous a gencyr eco rd f ora goo d rea son, o r 2) the Com m i ssi oner re q u es ts a re m an d for go od ca u se be for e re sp on d in g t o th e p et itio n for jud icia l rev iew
. Sh a la la v. Sch a efer, 50 9 U.S
. 29 2, 29 7 fn. 2 ( 1993 )
. Brihn neverm ade a m oti on t o the di str i ct cour t, and nei therdi d the Com m i ssi oner, so a sente nce- si x re m and w as i m possibl e. Even m or e fri vol ous i s Brihn’s ar gum ent that the Com m i ssi onerwas so m ehow obl i gat ed to fi l e a sente nce s i x-m oti on . Fi nal l y, Bri hn argues that the Com m i ssi onerdel iber ate l y inter fer ed w i th her att em pts to o btain benefi ts by del aying and l osing the r eco rd; ci ti ng Wild er v. A pfel , 15 3 F
. 3d 79 9 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8) , s he a r g ue s th atthi s “obdur ac y ” en ti tl es he r t o b en efi ts . T hi s i s a l o sing ar gum ent b ecause “[ o] bduracy i s no t a gr ound on w hi ch to award benefi ts; the evi dence proper l y in the re cor d m ust dem onst ra te disabi l i ty. ” B risco e ex rel Ta ylo r v. B a rnh a rt, 42 5 F. 3d 345, 35 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. M or eov er, the age ncy’ s be havi orher e, wh i l e perhaps car el ess , was a f arc r y fr o m tha t i n Wild er, 1 53 F
. 3d at1 81 , wher e th e AL J o n r emand i g no r ed o ur r ul i ngtha t th e spa r ta n medi ca l e vi den ce i n the r ec o r d i n n o wayc o nt r adi ct ed th e c o nc l us i o n o fthe a g e nc y ’ s o wn di s i nt e r e s t e d e xp e r ttha tthe c l a i man twa s t o t a l l y di s ab l e d. A ccor dingl y, we AF F I RM the di str i ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent.