Pursuant to Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, we have substituted Carolyn W. Colvin for

Michael J. Astrue as the named defendant-appellee.

The Honorable Robert L. Miller, Jr., District Judge of the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of

Indiana, sitting by designation.

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 12-2261

REBECCA E. PEPPER, 

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. 1:11-cv-01007-JES—James E. Shadid, Chief Judge.

ARGUED JANUARY 16, 2013—DECIDED APRIL 4, 2013

Before BAUER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and

MILLER, District Judge.


2 No. 12-2261

BAUER, Circuit Judge. Rebecca E. Pepper suffers from

numerous physical and mental impairments that affect

her ability to function. In 2008, she applied for disability

benefits, but the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied

her claim. Now, after unsuccessfully seeking relief from

the district court, Pepper turns to us contending that

the ALJ’s ruling is both substantively and procedurally

flawed. Specifically, Pepper argues: first, that the ALJ

made numerous errors when addressing Pepper’s

residual function capacity (RFC), and second, that the

ALJ’s credibility determination was inadequately supported and patently wrong. We believe that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s denial of benefits

and affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In September 2008, Pepper, then 54 years old, applied

for Supplemental Security Disability Insurance Benefits

with the Social Security Administration (SSA), alleging

that she became unable to work in November 1998 as

a result of numerous physical and mental impairments.

(The alleged onset date was later amended to October 18,

2002, the date Pepper last worked.) The critical inquiry is whether Pepper became disabled at any time

prior to December 31, 2007, the date Pepper was last

insured. See Eichstadt v. Astrue, 534 F.3d 663, 666 (7th

Cir. 2008). The SSA denied Pepper’s claim but

granted her a hearing with an ALJ, which was held on

October 26, 2009.
No. 12-2261 3

A. Medical Records

The extensive medical records in this case demonstrate

that Pepper sought treatment for numerous health concerns over the years. At various times, Pepper has been

assessed as having the following ongoing ailments: neck

pain and limited range of motion in her neck, degenerative

disc disease in her spine, left knee problems, migraine

headaches, problems with her vision, diabetes, asthma,

mitral valve prolapse, sciatica, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, hypertension, allergic rhinitis, obesity, plantar

fasciitis in her left heel, caregiver stress, and depression.

We confine our discussion of Pepper’s medical records

to the information most relevant to the ALJ’s ultimate

determination and this appeal.

1. Physical Impairments

a. Knee, Back, and Neck Problems 

Pepper said that her left knee pain began in 1998 when

she was going up and down a ladder. She took antiinflammatory medicine but claimed it did not relieve the

discomfort. A 2000 magnetic resonance imaging scan

(MRI) was negative except for small effusion at the

knee. In January 2003, Dr. Christopher Kafka, Pepper’s

cousin, noted that Pepper had a chronic problem with her

left knee and decreased range of motion, which he estimated to be 10-25 degrees and opined that Pepper

walked with a limp and had back pain as a result. An

examination in December 2003 revealed the knee

could only flex 20 degrees and made a creaking sound
4 No. 12-2261

The patient is asked to perform a series of maneuvers, 1

(continued...)

with movement, but there was no local edema (excess fluid).

Pepper began seeing Dr. Xiaolu Li, a family practitioner,

in January 2004. She noted that Pepper could not bend

her left knee very well and had back pain on her left side

that radiated to her left knee. Pepper complained of a

new knee pain in July 2005. An x-ray that month was

negative. In August 2005, Pepper saw Dr. Susan Goodner,

a VA staff physician, who noted that Pepper “would not

let her move [Pepper’s] left knee” and she “could not

force it into flexion.”

Pepper had an appointment with Dr. Janelle Regier, a

VA rheumatology fellow, in October 2005. Pepper said

the knee pain had gone away but that she could not flex

her knee past 15 degrees. Dr. Regier noted that Pepper

“walks with a limp and walks on the lateral side of the

right foot.” Pepper could stand with both feet flat on

the floor without pain, “walk heel-toe,” and stand on her

heels. She had difficulty standing on her tiptoes.

Dr. Rebecca Tuetken, a VA staff physician, agreed

with Dr. Regier’s assessment. Also in October 2005,

Dr. Shaun Christenson, a VA resident, noted that

Pepper favored her left leg when walking “due to [an]

old knee injury.” Dr. James Putman, a VA staff

physician, noted in April 2006 that Pepper had arthritis

in her knees and back.

In October 2007, Pepper was able to perform a “Get-up

and Go Test.” That month, Dr. Mike Hackmann, a VA 1
No. 12-2261 5

(...continued) 1

including sitting, standing up, and walking around. The

purpose of the test is to assess a person’s mobility and evaluate

the individual’s risk of falling. See “Get Up and Go Test,”

American Academy of Neurology, http://www.aan.com/practice/

guideline/uploads/273.pdf (last visited Apr. 1, 2013).

staff physician, noted that Pepper’s exercise tolerance

was “okay.” A progress note from December 2007 states,

“[Pepper] was instructed to exercise aerobically for 20-30

minutes three times weekly as directed by [her] physician”

and “to increase physical activity.”

Pepper told her doctors that she began experiencing

left neck pain in 1994 when she was answering phones

while working as a secretary. In January 2003, Dr. Kafka

noted that Pepper could only rotate her neck 5 degrees to the left and 75 degrees to the right. He said Pepper’s flexion was within normal limits. Examinations

in February 2004 and January 2005 did not reveal any

abnormalities.

Pepper said in July 2005 that she “has to sit a certain

wa[y] and turn her head to see properly.” Neck x-rays

that month revealed degenerative disc disease at

C5-6—disc space narrowing and anterior osteophyte formation. In August 2005, Pepper saw Dr. Goodner who

wrote, “Testing ROM of neck was nearly impossible.

Either the patient could not understand my directions

or she simply could not make her neck move as I instructed her to do.” Dr. Goodner further stated, “[T]his

almost strikes me as deliberate, but cannot rule out

early movement disorder or rheumatologic disorder[.]”
6 No. 12-2261

In October 2005, Dr. Regier noted that Pepper could

not rotate her neck past 35 degrees even though she no

longer had pain. Pepper did not know why she could

not move her neck despite the absence of pain. Dr. Regier

could not explain Pepper’s lack of range of motion and

said that the degenerative disc disease did not explain

Pepper’s symptoms. That month, Pepper told Dr. Deema

Fattal, a VA staff physician, that she “hears cracking/

noises” in her neck and that, in 1998, her neck issues

were exasperated when carrying a heavy box with a

coworker. Further examinations by Dr. Christenson

revealed 5/5 strength in Pepper’s upper and lower extremities, normal reflexes, and normal sensation

despite findings that (1) Pepper had “some” cervical

osteoarthritis; (2) her right sternocleidomastoid muscle

(large muscle on the side of her neck) was “hypertrophied”; (3) she had dystonic posturing (her right

shoulder was higher than her left); and (4) she had a

hint of left laterocollis (tilting of her head). Pepper

could only move her neck in a “jerky/nonstraight”

path. In October 2005, Dr. Fattal and Dr. Christenson recommended Pepper get Botox injections for her neck

problems.

An MRI of Pepper’s spine in November 2005 revealed mild degenerative disease throughout Pepper’s

cervical spine with foraminal narrowing at C5-6. Pepper

saw Dr. Ergun Uc, a VA staff neurologist, the day after

her MRI. Pepper had a limited range of motion in her

neck that she claimed impeded her driving and led to

other compensatory measures. Pepper denied any sig-
No. 12-2261 7

nificant pain. Dr. Uc repeated Dr. Christenson’s findings

regarding Pepper’s head tilt, ability to rotate her

head, and elevated right shoulder, and noted the July 2005

x-ray findings. Dr. Uc also stated that an electromyogram (EMG) and nerve study of Pepper’s cervical

paraspinal muscles was normal, but that it was not clear

how much of Pepper’s posture abnormalities were due

to the degenerative joint disease. Dr. Uc thought Botox

injections might improve Pepper’s neck range of motion.

In December 2005, Dr. Uc contacted Pepper with her

MRI results and suggested that she try Botox. Pepper

said she was not interested in the Botox injections. In

November 2006, Dr. Putman wrote that Pepper could

do activities of daily living “okay.” In December 2007,

Dr. Hackmann noted that Pepper had an “episode” in

November 2007 of sharp pains along the left side of her

neck and back but that Pepper was “feeling much

better.” Dr. Hackmann said this episode was most

likely the result of a muscle strain and recommended

Pepper apply heat and perform range of motion exercises to relieve discomfort.

b. Vision Problems

Pepper saw Dr. Jill Brody, an ophthalmologist, approximately every six months from 1997 to November 2007.

Dr. Brody diagnosed Pepper with numerous, longstanding vision issues, including congenital esotropia

(crossed eyes), nystagmus (rapid eye movements),

double vision, vertigo, suspected glaucoma, the effects
8 No. 12-2261

of migraine headaches, and “mild” cataracts. Aside from

cataracts, which Dr. Brody discovered in 2004, Pepper

had most of these problems at birth or several years

before she stopped working in 2002.

During appointments in 1999, 2003, and 2005, Pepper

told Dr. Brody that she periodically sees yellow spots.

In September 1999 and May 2006, Pepper complained

to Dr. Brody of difficulty reading at times due to blurriness. Pepper said “small print was more difficult to

see” in November 2007.

At various appointments from 1998 to 2008, Pepper

had visual acuity of 20/20 to 20/30 in each eye with

glasses. (20/20 is normal vision). In 2008, Dr. Brody

opined that Pepper could read fine print occasionally,

ambulate safely, avoid common hazards in the workplace, drive safely, and perform activities that require good distant, detailed vision. She described the

prognosis for Pepper’s right and left eye as “fair.”

Dr. Brody also concluded that Pepper has no depth

perception, has poor hand/eye coordination, and gets

headaches from her nystagmus.

c. Respiratory Ailments

In December 2003, Rod Hyde, a VA physician assistant,

noted Pepper had asthma that was “stable on inhalers”

and medication. In May 2005, Dr. Li noted that Pepper’s

asthma was “worsening” and that Pepper was having

more coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath. In
No. 12-2261 9

October 2005, Dr. Goodner described Pepper’s allergies

as being “year round but worse in spring, summer, and

fall.” Dr. Putman noted Pepper’s asthma and allergies

in April 2006. At that time, Pepper said her breathing

was stable, she got “good relief” from her inhalers,

and she did not have any cough. Dr. Putman noted the

same observations at another appointment in November 2006. In May 2007, Dr. Hackmann described

Pepper’s asthma as “well controlled” on medication. In

September 2007, Pepper completed a pulmonary function test, which resulted in a “normal ventilator function” finding.

d. Migraine Headaches

The medical records demonstrate complaints of migraine headaches to Dr. Brody as early as January 1999.

In January 2003, Dr. Kafka noted that Pepper had migraines. Hyde noted that Pepper’s migraines were

“stable” on medication in December 2003. Dr. Li wrote

that Pepper had been having migraines in March 2004,

but they were “better” in April 2004. Pepper told Hyde

in December 2004 that her migraines were better

controlled and that she had no concerns regarding them.

Dr. Li noted Pepper had headaches “once every 3-4

month[s]” in July 2005. In August 2005, Dr. Goodner

said Pepper has migraines several times monthly but

that she had gone several months without a headache

and gets “good relief” from medication. In October 2005,

Dr. Fattal noted that Pepper has four migraines per year.

In April 2006, and again in November 2006, Dr. Putman
10 No. 12-2261

made a note of Pepper’s past history of migraines but

did not discuss them further.

e. Obesity

In February 2000, Pepper was 5'1" and weighed

158 pounds. Her body mass index (BMI) was 29.9, which

is considered “overweight” but not “obese.” See S.S.R. 02-

01p, 2002 SSR LEXIS 1, at *4-6. After Pepper stopped

working in 2002, her weight fluctuated. In January 2003,

Dr. Kafka said he could not evaluate Pepper’s lumbar

spine because she was overweight. In December 2003,

Hyde said Pepper’s weight had increased approximately

100 pounds since 1998 and she was now morbidly obese.

In February 2004, Pepper weighed 192 pounds and had

a BMI of 36.4. In December 2004, Hyde said Pepper’s

obesity was “worsening,” Pepper was “morbidly obese,”

and Pepper’s obesity was adding to her “lipid/sugar

and back problems.”

In December 2005, Pepper weighed 183 pounds and

had a 35.1 BMI. In November 2006, she weighed 174

pounds, with a BMI of 33.0. In May 2007, Pepper was

down to 169.4 pounds, with a 32.1 BMI. Pepper was told

in October 2007 that maintaining a healthy weight would

help control some of her ailments. On December 6, 2007,

shortly before Pepper’s date lasted insured, Pepper

weighed 159.2 pounds and had a BMI of 30.1. This

was approximately the same weight Pepper weighed

when she was working in 2002.
No. 12-2261 11

2. Mental Impairments 

The medical records demonstrate Pepper has complained of mental impairments over the years. In January 2003, Dr. Kafka diagnosed Pepper with depression

and anxiety. He noted that Pepper had been stressed

since 1994 because she felt she might lose her job. In

December 2003, Hyde noted Pepper’s depression but

wrote that it was “stable on Paxil.” He described her as

“alert, oriented[,] and cheerful” but wrote that she had a

“somewhat anxious manner.” In January 2004, Pepper

complained of fatigue, poor memory, poor concentration, irritability, and being tearful; Dr. Li detected no

abnormalities of insight, judgment, orientation, memory,

or mood at that time. Dr. Li similarly detected no abnormalities in March, April, July, and November 2004,

though Pepper again complained of depression and

fatigue at the November 2004 examination. A depression screening was positive in December 2004, but Hyde

said Pepper’s depression was “stable” and wrote that

it was better controlled and that Pepper had no concerns.

In January, May, and July 2005, Dr. Li described Pepper

as alert and intact and detected no abnormalities in

her judgment or insight. Pepper said her fatigue was

better in July 2005. In August 2005, Dr. Goodner noted

that Pepper had “caregiver stress” after Pepper described

“feeling blue, like her life is over” because it was hard

to find someone to watch over her disabled husband.

Dr. Goodner also wrote that Pepper seemed “sad.” However, Pepper declined medication and counseling because
12 No. 12-2261

Naturopathy is a type of alternative medicine that focuses 2

on the restoration of health through vitalism or the natural selfhealing processes. See “Naturopathy,” Wikipedia, http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturopathy (last visited Apr. 1, 2013).

she was working with a naturopath at home. About 2

two weeks later, Pepper told Lisa Stritesky, a social

worker, that she could not work because her husband needs supervision and that she would “feel relieved” once they had moved.

In October 2005, Pepper told Dr. Christenson her

mood was “fine.” In December 2005, Pepper told Dr. Li

that she was under a lot of stress taking care of her

parents; however, her energy was better, and she was

sleeping better. At that appointment, Dr. Li told Pepper

about the relationship between Pepper’s hormonal imbalance and her body physiology and function, and

checked to see if Pepper was using her hormone cream

correctly. (Dr. Li discussed this with Pepper on numerous occasions between 2004 and 2007). In April 2006,

Dr. Putman noted that Pepper displayed appropriate

insight, judgment, mood, and affect; Dr. Li made

similar observations in November 2006, although

Dr. Putman noted depression as an active problem

during another November 2006 examination.

In May 2007, a depression screening was negative. In

October 2007, a licensed practical nurse said Pepper did

not have an altered cognitive status. At a separate appointment in October 2007, Dr. Li did not detect any
No. 12-2261 13

abnormalities with Pepper’s memory, mood, affect,

insight, or judgment. In January 2009, Howard Tin, a

psychologist, reviewed Pepper’s medical information

from before her last insured date. He concluded that

there was “[n]o psychiatric treatment and no mental

medical treatment” before then and “there is insufficient

medical information to establish any kind of mentally

disabeling [sic] impairment before the DLI.”

B. October 26, 2009 Hearing 

At the hearing with the ALJ, Pepper testified that

she is married without children and the primary caregiver to her disabled husband, who suffers from schizophrenia. She is 5'1" and weighs approximately 170

pounds. She is a high school graduate and received

secretarial training at a junior college. She is righthanded and has a driver’s license. The only restriction

on her license is that she must wear glasses. Pepper

stated that she worked as a unit secretary in surgery

at McDonough District Hospital until she quit in 2002.

Other employment during her 26 years at the hospital

encompassed different tasks and positions but mainly

included office clerk, data entry, microfilming, medical records, adult day care, and public relations.

The ALJ asked Pepper about her physical impairments. Prior to December 31, 2007, Pepper testified that

she had diabetes, hypothyroidism, allergies, asthma,

angioedema, hives, neurocardiogenic syncope (fainting),

bone spurs, arthritis in her lower back and left knee,

bulging discs, mitral valve prolapse, a heart murmur,
14 No. 12-2261

Pepper specifically testified that, to help alleviate her symp- 3

toms, she received physical therapy through the VA hospital,

where she was treated by Dr. Lefler, an internist, about two to

three times a month from 1982 until 2003. Pepper also stated

that she was referred to Dr. White, an orthopedist, for her

knee in 1998, but he did not recommend any treatment. 

aortic valve stenosis, and a hairline fracture in her right

foot. Pepper’s counsel stated that Pepper also had hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, migraine headaches, urticaria (hives), crossed eyes, and

temporomandibular joint disorder (jaw pain).

The ALJ asked Pepper if these conditions affected

basic work functions like standing and walking, to which

Pepper said yes. Pepper testified that her back makes

it difficult for her to sit “[f]or very long periods of time.”

She also said that her back causes her difficulty when

lifting, carrying, and bending. Then, after Pepper described the doctors she saw for her various physical

ailments, the ALJ asked Pepper if any of the doctors 3

put specific restrictions on her physical activities. Pepper

said Dr. Max Rexroat, her podiatrist, gave her a walking

limitation, but she could not provide more detail other

than she was supposed to remain off her feet. Pepper

also testified to weight gain as a side effect of the medications she took.

Pepper was asked about a typical day. Pepper said

she gets up at about 8:00 or 8:30 a.m., takes her medications with her breakfast, and gets her husband’s pills

together. Pepper then turns her attention to her pets—one
No. 12-2261 15

dog and four cats—from about 8:30 to 9:30. During

that time, she feeds her animals and gives her dog his

medication. After that, she takes her dog outside to

play. She also gets a dog from a neighbor’s house to

play with her dog. Pepper said she cleans her cats’ litter

box during that time as well. Pepper spends the rest of

the morning reading “papers.”

Around noon, Pepper prepares lunch, which usually

consists of “fix[ed] packaged stuff or TV dinners.” During

the afternoon hours, Pepper said she looks at more

papers and magazines, talks on the phone with insurance

companies, and tries to watch Oprah Winfrey’s television show. While doing this, she stretches her back by

bending over two pillows on her bed. She also uses this

time to do laundry and visit her mother, who lives approximately 40 minutes away. She drives to see her

mother one to three times a month. Around 4:30 p.m.,

Pepper brings in her pets and prepares dinner for herself and her husband. After dinner, Pepper spends the

rest of the evening watching television, looking at

more papers, and sorting through some boxes. She goes

to bed around midnight.

The ALJ asked Pepper more general questions about

her daily life. Pepper testified that she can dress herself

but has trouble putting on her shoes, pants, and shorts.

She is able to manage most of her personal hygiene;

however, she cannot wash her hair or clip her toenails

because she is unable to bend over in the bathtub. Pepper

also testified to being able to grocery shop by herself,

though her husband does the household dishes and
16 No. 12-2261

sweeping. Pepper does physical therapy exercises at

home. She sees her family every few months at holidays

like Thanksgiving and Christmas. Pepper testified that

she prefers to go out to eat with friends or family only

when given at least a week or two weeks’ notice because

she is afraid she might faint from fatigue. Pepper said

she fainted approximately five times in 2007. She said

her heart stops when she faints, and she worries that

the people around her will not know what to do when

it happens.

When asked if she had any psychological conditions,

Pepper said she was diagnosed with depression and

possibly post-traumatic stress disorder. She said she

does not trust people and would “rather be with [her]

animals than people.” Pepper also has a fear of leaving

her house because she is afraid of running into former

co-workers. She does not belong to any social organizations or a church. Pepper said she received counseling

for her psychological conditions during the relevant

claim period, which included seeing someone with a

Master’s Degree in Counseling about every month for

an hour. Pepper said she has trouble concentrating at

home because there is always something else to be

done. She also has problems sleeping.

Pepper was asked about her physical pain. She

testified to having pain in her jaw joints, neck, and

left lower back. She has trouble eating and chewing

because of sharp pains she gets if she eats something

chewy or opens her mouth too wide. She has neck pain

on her left side that radiates into her armpit, elbow, and
No. 12-2261 17

fingers. This pain occurs when she does certain things

like sitting at the computer too long or lifting heavy

boxes. Pepper experiences back pain or muscle spasms

when she bends over or engages in a lot of activity.

She also has trouble kneeling. Heat, ice, medications,

and injections provide temporary relief.

Pepper testified that she can lift a 17-pound bag of dog

or cat food but tries not to lift more than 20 pounds.

Prior to 2007, Pepper estimated that, during an eighthour day, she could walk one mile in 30 minutes, three

times a day; stand for 15 minutes every hour; and sit

for an hour and a half, three times a day. She would

rather sit than stand, however, and walking on uneven

surfaces bothers her back and knee. Pepper has trouble

reaching the pedals in her car because of her height,

but she said she can drive the car and operate the

steering wheel without any problems—the limited range

of motion in her neck makes it difficult to see traffic

on her left side, but the condition has not caused

a traffic accident.

Pepper said her vision requires her to have a computer

monitor “real close” to her so she can see it, and her neck

requires it to be positioned to her right. She also has

migraines two to three times a month, which cause

“vomiting, nausea and troubles with sound and . . .

bright lights.” Pepper said medicine makes them go

away, but that “[i]t usually takes the day and sometimes

into the next day.” Pepper testified that her migraines

and depression would cause her to miss work more than

three days a month. Pepper also testified that she could
18 No. 12-2261

not do any of her former jobs because she was

“mentally, emotionally, and physically exhausted” prior

to 2007.

The ALJ questioned Frank Mendrick, a vocational

expert (VE), at the end of the hearing. The ALJ asked the

VE, hypothetically, whether Pepper would be able to

perform any jobs if he found Pepper’s testimony fully

credible and all the impairments were supported by the

medical evidence. The VE said no because Pepper

claimed she would have to miss more than three days

of work per month and that number is beyond what is

normally provided to an employee. Pepper’s counsel

did not ask the VE any additional questions.

C. ALJ’s Decision

The ALJ denied Pepper’s claim on November 24, 2009.

In the written decision, the ALJ followed the five-step

process as outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. At step one,

he found that Pepper had not engaged in substantial

gainful activity during the period before the alleged onset

date, October 18, 2002, through her date last insured,

December 31, 2007. At steps two and three, he found

that Pepper had a combination of severe impairments—degenerative disc disease with sciatica, obesity,

hypertension, hyperglycemia, hypothyroidism, vision

problems, and asthma—but that none of them met or

equaled an impairment in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d),

404.1525, or 404.1526. The ALJ also found that Pepper’s

mental impairment of depression was not severe. At
No. 12-2261 19

Pepper spends considerable time explaining how the dis- 4

trict court made numerous mistakes when reviewing the

(continued...)

step four, the ALJ determined that Pepper had the

RFC to perform light work, as defined in 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1567, with the exception that she avoid concentrated exposure to pulmonary irritants and hazards.

In making his RFC determination, the ALJ considered

Pepper’s various physical and mental impairments

and the relevant medical records and testimony from

Pepper. The ALJ also noted that Pepper’s testimony

regarding the “intensity, persistence, and limiting

effects of [her] symptoms” was not fully credible. The

ALJ then concluded that Pepper was capable of performing her past relevant work as a secretary, data entry

clerk, and office clerk prior to December 31, 2007. As

a result, Pepper was not under a disability prior to her

date last insured, and her claim was denied.

The Appeals Council denied Pepper’s request for

review of the ALJ’s decision on November 3, 2010, so

the ALJ’s ruling became the SSA’s final decision on the

matter. Pepper then filed this suit seeking review of the

SSA’s decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district

court ffirmed the ALJ’s decision on March 29, 2012.

II. DISCUSSION

Because we review the district court’s affirmance

de novo, we review the ALJ’s decision directly. Jones v. 4
20 No. 12-2261

(...continued) 4

ALJ’s decision, but these contentions are irrelevant to our

inquiry here. 

Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1160 (7th Cir. 2010). We will

reverse an ALJ’s determination only when it is not supported by substantial evidence, meaning “such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate

to support a conclusion.” McKinzey v. Astrue, 641 F.3d

884, 889 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Richardson v. Perales,

402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)) (internal quotation marks omitted). We will not, however, reweigh the evidence or

substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ’s. Shideler v.

Astrue, 688 F.3d 306, 310 (7th Cir. 2012). In rendering

a decision, an ALJ “must build a logical bridge from

the evidence to his conclusion, but he need not provide

a complete written evaluation of every piece of testimony and evidence.” Schmidt v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 737,

744 (7th Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotation

marks omitted).

Pepper’s appeal focuses on two main issues: the ALJ’s

RFC determination and the ALJ’s credibility determination.

A. Residual Function Capacity

Pepper challenges the ALJ’s RFC determination on

a number of grounds. At step four, the ALJ must

determine the individual’s RFC, or “what an individual

can still do despite his or her limitations.” S.S.R. 96-8p,

1996 SSR LEXIS 5, at *5. The RFC represents the maxi-
No. 12-2261 21

mum a person can do—despite his limitations—on a

“regular and continuing basis,” which means roughly

eight hours a day for five days a week. Id. The ALJ in

this case concluded that Pepper had the RFC to perform

light work, with the caveat that she avoid concentrated

exposure to pulmonary irritants and hazards. 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1567(b) provides the definition for light work:

Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds

at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects

weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight

may be very little, a job is in this category when it

requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when

it involves sitting most of the time with some pushing

and pulling of arm or leg controls. To be considered

capable of performing a full or wide range of light

work, you must have the ability to do substantially

all of these activities. If someone can do light work,

we determine that he or she can also do sedentary

work, unless there are additional limiting factors

such as loss of fine dexterity or inability to sit for

long periods of time.

We address each of Pepper’s RFC challenges in turn.

1. Assessment of the Information

Pepper first argues that the ALJ’s RFC determination

was “erroneous” as a whole because the ALJ “merely

summarized some of the medical evidence without assessment or discussion specifying how the medical and

other evidence supported his conclusions,” and there-
22 No. 12-2261

fore, it did not satisfy the requirements of S.S.R. 96-8p.

We disagree. After setting forth his RFC determination,

the ALJ provided a lengthy discussion of Pepper’s testimony regarding all her impairments and the information in the medical records. The ALJ described Pepper’s

jaw, foot, chest, neck, and shoulder pains; her fear of nearfainting episodes; her respiratory issues; her mental

impairments (mainly, depression); her migraines; her

weight gain and obesity; and her vision problems. After

doing so, he concluded that each of the impairments or

ailments supported the light work limitation. This is

consistent with our repeated assertion that “an ALJ’s

‘adequate discussion’ of the issues need not contain

‘a complete written evaluation of every piece of evidence.’ ” McKinzey, 641 F.3d at 891 (quoting Schmidt,

395 F.3d at 744). The ALJ’s discussion here was adequate.

To the extent Pepper argues that the decreased range

of motion in her neck and her ability to sit for only a

short period of time are inconsistent with the ALJ’s RFC

assessment, this argument is unconvincing. The only

doctor to offer an opinion about Pepper’s abilities

that arguably could be inconsistent with her capacity to

do light work was Pepper’s cousin, Dr. Kafka, in 2003. But

even Dr. Kafka did not explicitly opine that Pepper’s

impairments, individually or in the aggregate, prevented

her from completing the central tasks of “light work:”

lifting, walking, standing, and pushing and pulling with

one’s arms and legs. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b); see

also Diaz v. Chater, 55 F.3d 300, 306-07 (7th Cir. 1995)

(describing the evidence the ALJ considered in determining the claimaint had the RFC to do light and
No. 12-2261 23

sedentary work, including evidence of one doctor’s

opinion that the claimaint’s impairments “affected his

ability to reach, push, and pull”). The ALJ has the responsibility of resolving any conflicts between the

medical evidence and the claimaint’s testimony. See

Shauger v. Astrue, 675 F.3d 690, 698 (7th Cir. 2012)

(quoting Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 936 (8th Cir.

2006)). He did that. Our task is to determine whether

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC conclusion. We believe that it does.

2. Migraine Headaches

Pepper’s next argument is that the ALJ did not adequately consider her migraine headaches in determining

her RFC. This argument is equally unavailing. The ALJ

mentioned Dr. Fattal’s October 2005 note regarding Pepper’s complaint of migraines occurring about four times

per year. The ALJ also mentioned Dr. Putman’s note

that Pepper complained of migraines in 2006, in addition

to his observation that Pepper complained of migraines

to Dr. Brody on numerous occasions. Pepper contends

this was not sufficient because her migraines “occurred

several times a month and in each instance incapacitated

her for at least one day.” But Pepper’s medical records

do not support that contention, and an ALJ is not

required to discuss every snippet of information from

the medical records that might be inconsistent with the

rest of the objective medical evidence. See Simila v.

Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 516 (7th Cir. 2009). The only medical record supporting Pepper’s statement is a note
24 No. 12-2261

from August 2005 by Dr. Goodner that says, “[Patient]

has migraine several times monthly, though she has now

gone 3 months without one.” In the diagnosis section,

however, Dr. Goodner further states, “MIGRAINE—quiet

for now, good relief with meds when they do occur[.]”

This statement is in accordance with the rest of the

medical evidence that indicates Pepper had migraine

headaches approximately every few months and the

symptoms were relieved with medication, which the

ALJ appropriately found to be more credible than

Pepper’s testimony (as we address below). See McKinzey,

641 F.3d at 890 (credibility determinations must be supported by substantial evidence). To find support for

this conclusion, one need look no further than the medical record notes from the months before and after

Dr. Goodner’s August 2005 note: Dr. Li wrote in her

July 2005 note that Pepper said she has headaches

“once every 3 to 4 month[s]”; and in October 2005,

Dr. Fattal wrote that Pepper has “4 migraines per y[ea]r.”

This is not a situation like Indoranto v. Barnhart, 374

F.3d 470, 473-74 (7th Cir. 2004), where the ALJ failed to

discuss “chronic severe headaches every day,” or Villano

v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 2009), where the

ALJ performed a cursory analysis and dismissed a line

of evidence without any discussion. We believe the ALJ’s

discussion sufficiently addressed Pepper’s migraine

headaches and was supported by substantial evidence

from the record.
No. 12-2261 25

3. Vision Problems

Pepper further contends the ALJ erred when discussing her vision limitations by only relying on a document that post-dated Pepper’s date last insured and in

not adequately explaining how Pepper’s vision impairments are addressed in the RFC. Again, we disagree.

First, the document at issue was from an examination

with Dr. Brody on November 12, 2008. Dr. Brody stated

that Pepper’s eyesight with corrective lenses ranged

from 20/20 to 20/30. This assessment is consistent with

Dr. Brody’s previous eye examinations of Pepper’s

eyesight from 1998 to 2007. Additionally, all but one

of Pepper’s documented eye impairments were present

several years before Pepper stopped working in 2002,

which the ALJ noted in his written decision. These included congenital esotropia, possible glaucoma, visual

obscuration, nystagmus, and the effect of migraines. Mild

cataracts were noticed in 2004, but they did not change

Pepper’s visual acuity. The ALJ also noted Pepper’s

complaints to Dr. Brody about her difficulty seeing small

print, difficulty reading, seeing black spots and flashes,

and seeing yellow, all of which occurred before Pepper’s

date last insured. We find no errors in the information the ALJ considered or the ALJ’s explanation when

addressing Pepper’s vision limitations.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of Pepper’s eye

impairments substantially worsening or altering her

ability to work during the relevant claim period, which

could have altered the ALJ’s determination. See Eichstadt,

534 F.3d at 666 (stating that certain conditions pre-
26 No. 12-2261

dating the claimant’s insured status were irrelevant when

evaluating the claimant’s application for benefits because

the claimant “was able to engage in substantial gainful

employment during and after experiencing these problems”). Despite Dr. Brody’s conclusion that Pepper had

no depth perception and poor hand/eye coordination

in 2008, there is no evidence of Dr. Brody ever opining

that Pepper could not work due to her eye impairments.

And similarly, Pepper does not direct us to any source

or authority to support a contention that the effects of

her vision impairments would prevent her from completing any job in the light work category. Cf. S.S.R. 85-15p,

1985 SSR LEXIS 20, at *20-21 (“As a general rule, even if

a person’s visual impairment(s) were to eliminate all

jobs that involve very good vision (such as working

with small objects or reading small print), as long as he

or she retains sufficient visual acuity to be able to handle

and work with rather large objects (and has the visual

fields to avoid ordinary hazards in a workplace), there

would be a substantial number of jobs remaining across

all exertional levels.”). This information leads us to

easily conclude that substantial evidence supports the

ALJ’s vision determination.

4. Obesity

We move to Pepper’s contention that the ALJ violated

S.S.R. 02-01p by not properly considering her obesity

when formulating the RFC. See S.S.R. 02-01p, 2002 SSR

LEXIS 1. The ALJ made a finding that Pepper’s obesity

is severe—i.e., “significantly limits [Pepper’s] ability to
No. 12-2261 27

engage in work activity.” Accordingly, the ALJ was

required to discuss “any functional limitations resulting from the obesity” when formulating his RFC

assessment. See id. at *19. We agree with Pepper that

the ALJ did not specifically undertake such an analysis.

We have held, however, that this type of error may be

harmless when the RFC is based on limitations identified by doctors who specifically noted obesity as a contributing factor to the exacerbation of other impairments. See Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731, 736-37

(7th Cir. 2006). That is what occurred here.

The ALJ noted Dr. Kafka’s 2003 observation that

Pepper had decreased range of motion in her lumbar

spine but that Pepper was overweight and it was difficult to fully evaluate her range of motion. The ALJ

also discussed Dr. Li’s 2004 assessment of Pepper’s active

problems: elevated liver enzymes, hyperlipidemia, hyperglycemia, and artificial menopause. Pepper complained

to Dr. Li about weight gain, and each of those conditions

can be aggravated by obesity. Furthermore, the ALJ

described Dr. Putman’s 2006 assessment of Pepper and

her “active problems,” which also included obesity. We

believe these discussions, combined with Pepper’s

failure to specify how her obesity further impaired her

ability to work, demonstrate that the ALJ adequately

considered Pepper’s obesity. See Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390

F.3d 500, 504 (7th Cir. 2004) (concluding that the ALJ’s

failure to explicitly consider the claimant’s obesity was

inconsequential because the claimant did not specify

how his obesity further impaired his ability to work and

the ALJ addressed the limitations suggested by doctors
28 No. 12-2261

who otherwise considered the claimant’s weight). Any

error was therefore harmless.

5. Depression

Pepper’s other arguments relating to the RFC focus on

the ALJ’s treatment of her depression. Her main contention is that the ALJ erred by failing to follow the procedure for evaluating mental limitations described in

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a, known as the “special technique.”

This argument has some traction.

The special technique requires the ALJ to first determine whether a claimant has a medically determinable

mental impairment(s). § 404.1520a(b)(1). This is done

by evaluating the claimant’s “pertinent symptoms, signs,

and laboratory findings.” Id. If the claimant has a

medically determinable medical impairment, the ALJ

must document that finding and rate the degree of

function limitation in four broad “functional areas:”

activities of daily living; social functioning; concentration, persistence, or pace; and episodes of decompensation. § 404.1520a(c)(3); Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 674

(7th Cir. 2008). These areas are known as the “B criteria.”

See Craft, 539 F.3d at 674 (citing 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P,

app. 1, §§ 12.00 et. seq).

The first three functional areas are rated on a five-point

scale: none, mild, moderate, marked, and extreme.

§ 404.1520a(c)(4). The final area is rated on a four-point

scale: none, one or two, three, four or more. Id. The

rating assigned to each functional area corresponds to
No. 12-2261 29

a determination of severity of mental impairment.

§ 404.1520a(d)(1). If the impairment is considered

severe, the ALJ must determine whether the impairment

meets or is equivalent in severity to a listed mental disorder. § 404.1520a(d)(2). If the mental impairment

neither meets nor is equivalent in severity to any

listing, the ALJ will assess the claimant’s RFC.

§ 404.1520a(d)(3). The ALJ must document his use of

the technique, incorporating the relevant findings and

conclusions into the written decision. § 404.1520a(e)(4).

The decision must adequately discuss “the significant

history, including examination and laboratory findings,

and the functional limitations that were considered

in reaching a conclusion about the severity of the [claimant’s] mental impairment(s).” Id. The decision must

include “a specific finding as to the degree of limitation

in each of the functional areas[.]” Id.

The ALJ did not explicitly apply the special technique

when evaluating Pepper’s depression. This is clear from

the written decision. The Commissioner concedes this

point, instead arguing that Pepper was not harmed by

this omission. Indeed, “[u]nder some circumstances, the

failure to explicitly use the special technique may . . . be

harmless error.” Craft, 539 F.3d at 675. We agree with

the Commissioner.

At step two, the ALJ made the required severe or

not severe finding, concluding that Pepper’s “mental

impairment of depression” was not severe. He did not,

however, integrate the requisite point scales into his

decision or explicitly refer to the functional areas. None-
30 No. 12-2261

theless, we believe the ALJ provided enough information to support the “not severe” finding. The ALJ cited

the absence of psychiatric or mental medical treatment

prior to the date last insured, Pepper’s good response

to medication, and the aggravation of her condition by

her responsibilities at home. The record medical evidence supports these assertions. For example, Hyde

stated that Pepper’s depression in 2003 was stable on Paxil.

See Prochaska, 454 F.3d at 737 (“[C]ontrollable conditions

do ‘not entitle one to benefits or boost one’s entitlement

by aggravating another medical condition.’ ” (quoting

Barrett v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1065, 1068 (7th Cir. 2004))). In

January 2004, Dr. Li noted Pepper complained of fatigue,

poor memory, poor concentration, irritability, being

tearful, and other symptoms; but her examination revealed no abnormalities in Pepper’s insight or judgment,

orientation, memory or impairment, and mood. In

October 2005, Pepper stated her mood was “fine.” Examinations by Dr. Putman in April 2006 and Dr. Li in

October 2007 also revealed that Pepper had appropriate

insight, judgment, mood, and affect. Even a May 2007

screening for depression was negative. The ALJ did not

fully comply with the special technique at this juncture,

but substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion

at step two that Pepper’s mental impairment was not

severe. Pepper was not harmed by the ALJ’s misstep.

Likewise, as the Commissioner correctly points out,

the ALJ did not stop there when analyzing Pepper’s

depression. After a “not severe” finding at step two, the

special technique requires the ALJ to assess the mental

impairment in conjunction with the individual’s RFC
No. 12-2261 31

at step four. See § 404.1520a(d)(3). The ALJ did that here,

concluding that Pepper’s depression did not prevent

her from completing light work. He cited Hyde’s 2003

examination and Pepper’s follow up with Dr. Li in 2004.

He also referred to Pepper declining medication and

counseling at her appointment with Dr. Goodner in

August 2005 and failing to undergo significant depression treatment during the relevant claim period. In addition, the ALJ discussed information regarding Pepper’s

mental state outside of the specific paragraph addressing Pepper’s depression medical records—Dr. Kafka’s

opinion that Pepper had “low self-esteem” in 2003,

Dr. Putman’s depression note in 2006, and Pepper’s

testimony regarding her mental state. Again, the ALJ

did not make explicit findings referencing the four functional areas, but a plain reading of the ALJ’s written

decision demonstrates the ALJ generally discussed

(1) Pepper’s daily activities; (2) Pepper’s mental state

when around people; (3) Pepper’s difficulty focusing

when completing housework; and (4) the lack of evidence of any specific, periodic episodes of decompensation (i.e., a period of exasperated symptoms). In doing

so, it is apparent the ALJ considered all the relevant

information and factors required. See § 404.1520a(c)(1).

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s mental impairment finding at step four as well.

The ALJ’s application of the special technique is not a

model for compliance, but we will not remand a case

for further specification when we are convinced that the

ALJ will reach the same result. See McKinzey, 641 F.3d

at 892. We believe that would occur in this case. The
32 No. 12-2261

ALJ’s failure to explicitly apply the special technique

was harmless.

For completeness, we briefly address Pepper’s undeveloped arguments that the ALJ erred by (1) using

his “hunches” to reach his conclusion that Pepper’s

depression was not severe; (2) failing to inquire as to

why Pepper did not obtain treatment for her depression prior to her date last insured; and (3) ignoring the

evidence of a depression diagnosis and treatment prior

to Pepper’s date last insured, which is corroborated by

evidence that post-dates Pepper’s date last insured.

First, we have already concluded that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Pepper’s

depression did not prevent her from performing light

work; we do not see how the ALJ was “playing doctor,”

as Pepper insinuates. Cf. Myles v. Astrue, 582 F.3d 672, 677

(7th Cir. 2009). Next, why a claimant failed to undergo

treatment is one factor to consider when assessing an

impairment, but the burden was on Pepper to explain

why she was disabled as a result of her depression. See

Scheck v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 697, 702 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing

20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(c); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146

n.5 (1987)). Pepper failed to satisfy her burden. This is

especially true considering Pepper was represented by

counsel throughout the pendency of the proceedings. See

Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d 836, 842 (7th Cir. 2007) (explaining that “a claimant represented by counsel is presumed to have made his best case before the ALJ”).

Lastly, as our previous discussion shows, we do not

believe the ALJ ignored any pertinent information.
No. 12-2261 33

B. Credibility Determination

Pepper’s final argument is that the ALJ’s credibility

determination must be overturned. An ALJ’s credibility

determination may be overturned only if it is “patently

wrong.” Craft, 539 F.3d at 678. However, an ALJ must

adequately explain his credibility finding by discussing

specific reasons supported by the record. Terry v. Astrue,

580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir. 2009). A failure to do so

could also be grounds for reversal. See Bjornson v.

Astrue, 671 F.3d 640, 649 (7th Cir. 2012).

Pepper contends the ALJ’s explanation as to why he

found Pepper’s statements “not credible” was inadequate because the ALJ used boilerplate language in his

opinion and, therefore, failed to provide a reasonable

basis for his determination. The ALJ stated in part,

After careful consideration of the evidence, the undersigned finds that the claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected

to cause the alleged symptoms; however, the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms are not

credible to the extent they are inconsistent with

the above functional capacity assessment.

We acknowledge this is the same language we have

repeatedly described as “meaningless boilerplate” because it fails to link the conclusory statements made

with objective evidence in the record. See, e.g., id. at 645.

It does not explain, or direct a reviewing court to, what

the ALJ relied on when making his determination.

Parker v. Astrue, 597 F.3d 920, 922 (7th Cir. 2010). However,
34 No. 12-2261

the simple fact that an ALJ used boilerplate language

does not automatically undermine or discredit the ALJ’s

ultimate conclusion if he otherwise points to information

that justifies his credibility determination. See Shideler,

688 F.3d at 311-12; see also Getch v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 473,

483 (7th Cir. 2008) (“Reviewing courts . . . should rarely

disturb an ALJ’s credibility determination, unless that

finding is unreasonable or unsupported.”). The ALJ

did that here.

Immediately following the use of boilerplate, the ALJ

provided a paragraph discussing Pepper’s testimony in

conjunction with the RFC statement. The ALJ acknowledged Pepper’s ability to lift, stand, sit, and walk and

how “each falls within the category of light work.” The

ALJ then described Pepper’s testimony regarding her

daily activities, which was corroborated by her husband,

and the pain and symptoms exacerbated when Pepper

sits or stands for extended periods of time or engages

in “excessive bending.” See Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805,

812 (7th Cir. 2011) (“An ALJ may consider a claimant’s

daily activities when assessing credibility, but ALJs must

explain perceived inconsistencies between a claimant’s

activities and the medical evidence.”) (internal citation

omitted). He noted that Pepper’s RFC did not require

either. See S.S.R. 83-14, 1983 SSR LEXIS 33, at *6-7

(“[T]o perform substantially all of the exertional requirements of most sedentary and light jobs, a person would

not need to crouch and would need to stoop only occasionally (from very little up to one-third of the time,

depending on that particular job).”). The ALJ also discussed Pepper’s testimony that her medication was
No. 12-2261 35

“somewhat effective” and she could maintain her ability

to carry out daily activities by stretching and completing physical therapy exercises. Lastly, the ALJ explained how the only medical opinions regarding

Pepper’s ability to work prior to her date last insured were from state agency medical consultants after

that date had passed. None of them opined that Pepper

was disabled prior to her date last insured.

These references allow us to sufficiently examine what

the ALJ relied on when concluding Pepper was not

fully credible. See Prochaska, 454 F.3d at 738 (concluding

that the ALJ appropriately considered diverse factors in

his credibility determination, including the claimant’s

hearing testimony and the objective medical records,

even though all the claimant’s allegations were not discussed in the ALJ’s written opinion). As we previously

explained, Pepper testified to engaging in numerous

activities throughout the course of an ordinary day that

involved focused thinking and physical activity (e.g.,

driving at least 40 minutes to see her mom, reading papers

and magazines, talking on the phone with insurance

companies, shopping, and preparing meals). This testimony is in direct contrast to Pepper’s repeated assertion that she could not engage in any of the activities

required by her former employment, including sitting,

standing, or concentrating. Furthermore, even some of

the doctors who examined Pepper were confused as to

why the medical examinations did not reveal the source

of Pepper’s symptoms. For example, Pepper argues that

her neck pain and limited range of motion hindered

her ability to work, but Dr. Goodner stated, “[Pepper’s
36 No. 12-2261

symptoms] almost strike[] me as deliberate.” (Only her

cousin, Dr. Kafka, in 2003 affirmatively said there “appears to be no symptom magnification.”) And the medical records likewise do not support Pepper’s testimony

regarding the frequency or effects of her migraines

or fainting episodes, which seemed to form the basis

for the VE’s “no work” determination. See Sienkiewicz

v. Barnhart, 409 F.3d 798, 804 (7th Cir. 2005) (“[A] discrepancy between the degree of pain claimed by the applicant and that suggested by medical records is probative of exaggeration.”).

The ALJ concluded that, taken together, the amount

of daily activities Pepper performed, the level of exertion necessary to engage in those types of activities,

and the numerous notations in Pepper’s medical records

regarding her ability to engage in activities of daily living

undermined Pepper’s credibility when describing her

subjective complaints of pain and disability. These are

exactly the type of factors the ALJ was required to consider. See S.S.R. 96-7p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 4, at *7-8. It is true

the ALJ could have been more specific as to which

physical and mental impairments and symptoms he

thought were exaggerated, as opposed to generally referencing large-scale portions of Pepper’s daily-activity

testimony, but that fact does not change the result

here. The ALJ’s explanation was sufficient to reasonably

conclude that Pepper exaggerated the effects of her impairments. It also was not “patently wrong.”

We find no errors in the ALJ’s credibility determination.
No. 12-2261 37

III. CONCLUSION

We acknowledge that Pepper’s condition may have

worsened since December 31, 2007, but the Social

Security regulations require a “disability” finding

before a claimant’s date last insured. For the reasons

discussed above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and the ALJ’s denial of benefits.

4-4-13