### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Cir c uit

No. 18-2106

B E TT I E B UR

M E S T E R , Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

N AN CY A. B E R

R YH I L L, Acti ng Commi ssi oner of S oci al S ecur i ty, Defendant-Appellee.

Appea l fro m the U ni ted S ta tes Di stri ct Co urt fo r the

Ea stern Di stri ct o f Wi sco n si n. No . 2 :1 5 -cv -0 13 9 3-WCG — Willia m C. Grie sba ch , Ch ief Judg e.

A RGU E D D E C E MB E R 4, 2018

— D E C I D E D A P RI L 5 , 2019

Befor e B AU E R

, K AN N E, and B RE N NAN , Circuit Judges

. B AU E R , C i rc u i t Ju dge. B etti e Bur mester appli ed for di sabi li ty i nsur a nce benefi ts clai ming she w as unable t o w o r k d ue to physi cal i m pai r ments a ffecting her j oi nts, chr oni c pain, and poor mental health. The S oci al S ecur i ty A dmini str ati on (“S S A”) deni ed her appli cati o n
. B u r m e s t e r a p p e a l s th e d e c i s i on2 No. 18-2106
of the ALJ that held she w as n ot di sabled and the d i s tr i ct cour t opi ni on affi r ming the ALJ’s deni a l of benefi ts. For the followi ng r easons, we agr ee wi th the di str i ct cour t and affi rm.

I. BACKGROUND On December 20, 2 010, Bur mester appl i ed for di sabi li ty benefi ts allegi ng a J u n e 2 6 , 2008, onset of her di sabi li ty

. S he clai m ed her abi li ty to w or k w a s li mi ted by degener ati v e di sc di sease, pseudo-gout in her l e f t k n e e, osteoar thr i ti s in both knees and left thumb, a hear t condi ti on, and d e pr e s si on. The appli cati on w as deni ed on M a y 1 1, 2011, and on October 3, 2011. Bur mester r equested a hear ing. On December 10, 2012, ALJ P atr i ck Mor r i s on conducted a hear i ng. Bur m ester testi fi ed that s he li v ed in a townhouse wi th her husband, and had c ompleted hi gh school and one y ear of techni cal college. S he w or ked a s a hand packager for the manufactur i ng company Br i ggs & S t r a tton for many y ear s. S he

w as employ ed as a par t-ti me attendant at the Br adley Center , an a r e n a l ocated i n Mi lw aukee. Her j ob duti es included checking the v ali di ty of ti ck e t s a n d d i recti ng ev ent goer s to thei r seats. Bur mester a mended the onset date of her di sabi li ty to S eptember 1 , 2 0 09. When asked to rank h er i mpai r ments b y
sev er i ty , she l i sted back spasms, r heumatoi d ar thr i ti s in her hands and feet, knee pain, and fibr omy a lgi a as he r most li m i ti ng condi ti ons. The ALJ a lso n o t e d that Bur mester had chondr omalaci a ( also known as “r unner ’s knee”) , gout, and

r i gh t s h o u l d e r i s s u es. Bur mester testi fi ed that h er hyper tensi on
w as under contr ol, that she gets about t h r e e mi gr ai ne head-No. 18-2106 3
aches a y ear

, and that s he had b een di agnosed w i th anxi ety and depr essi on. For her dai ly acti v i t i e s, B u r m e s t e r t e s t i fi e d that her husband helped her out of bed but she w as other w i se independent in her own s elf car e. Her husband di d the cooki ng, cleaning, pai d the bi lls, and w ent gr ocer y shopping and a fr i end helped wi th cleaning once a week. Bur mester w as able to go to chur ch once
a w eek; out to dinner once a month; use the computer to check her emai l and soci al medi a accounts; and w alk her d og half a block twi ce a day

. H er tr eating physi ci an pr escr i bed the use of
a cane. On Januar y 17, 2013, in a w r it ten d eci si on, the ALJ d eter

mined that Bur mester w as not d i s ab l e d

. B u r m e s t e r s u c c e s s f u lly appealed t h a t deci si on to the Appeals Counci l, and her case
w as r emanded to the ALJ for fur ther hear ings. The second hear i ng w a s h eld on J une 3, 2014. Bur mester agai n amended her di sabi li ty onset date to S eptember 6 , 2009. S he testi fi ed that she suffer ed fr om degener ati v e di sc and j oi nt di sease in h er lumbar s pine, r i ght shoulder i mpingement syndr ome, chondr omalaci a in t he left p atella, r heumatoi d

ar thr i ti s in h er feet and hands, neck pain, gout, hi gh blood pr essur e, tr ochanter i c b ur si ti s in her hi ps, a nd T ype II di abetes. S he took Per cocet and mor phin e for pain management, and

r ecei v ed Remi cade i nfusi ons ev er y si x w eeks to tr eat her

r h eumatoi d ar thr i ti s. Bur mester stated agai n that she had b een di agnosed wi th anxi ety and depr essi on, a nd r epor ted hav ing pani c attacks ev er y thr ee months. At the ti me of the hear ing, she li v ed wi th her husband and adult son who cooked her meals and di d the gr ocer y shopping.4 No. 18-2106
S he w ould do some c l e a n ing, but her s on or husband w ould fini sh i t when she i nev i tably became too sor e to conti nue. S he

r epor ted attendi n g chur ch twi ce a month, and goi ng out to eat
once a month. S he also let her d og outsi de a nd w alked ar ound the backy ar d wi th hi m for tw enty minutes at a ti me. On July 16, 2 0 1 4, the ALJ found that Bur m ester w as not di sabled; he concluded that “based upon the ov er all obj ecti v e di agnosti c i magi ng, physi cal exami n ati on, a n d mental status findings, the clai mant’s admi tted hi gh lev el of dai ly functi oni ng contr adi c ti ng her hear ing testi mony , as w ell a s h er multi ple i nconsi stent statements (such as r egar ding dr ug u se, shor t and long-ter m memor y

, and abi li ty to concentr a te), the u nder

si gned finds that h er allegati ons of dis abi li ty ar e n ot fully sub st anti ated i n the r ecor d.” The ALJ found that she h ad the

r esi d u al functi on capaci ty (RFC) to per f or m li ght w or k, except wi th no m or e than fr equent r eaching
ov er h ead wi th the r i ght upper extr emi ty a nd no
w or k on ladder s, r opes, scaffolding, or at unpr otected h ei ghts. S he al s o i s mentally li mi ted to si mple, r outi ne, r epeti ti v e tasks r equi r ing only si mple w or k-r elated deci si ons wi th few changes i n the routi ne w or k sett ing and no mor e than occasi onal int e r a c t i o n w i th s uper v i s or s, cow or ker s, and the gener al publi c. Based on the test im o n y of a v ocati onal exper t, the ALJ found that Bur m ester c ould not conti nue her past r elev ant w or k as a hand packager

, but that a si gni fi cant number of j obs exi sted in the nati onal economy that Bur mester could per for m—such as
r out e r , p r i ce mar ker

, or r outi ng cler k. The Appeals Counci lNo. 18-2106 5
deni ed Bur mester ’s r equest for a r ev i ew and the ALJ’s deci si on became final. The di str i ct cour t upheld the ALJ’s deci si on.

II. LEGAL ST

ANDARD W e w il l uphold an ALJ’s fin al deci si on i f the cor r ect legal st a nd ar ds wer e a p pli ed and s uppor ted w i th substanti al

ev i dence. 42 U.S .C. § 405(g); Jelinek v
. Astrue, 662 F

. 3d 805, 811 (7th Ci r
. 2011). “S ubstanti al ev i dence i s such r elev ant ev i dence
as a r easonable mind m i ght accept as adequate to suppor t a conclusi on.” Schaaf v
. Astrue, 602 F .3d 869, 874 (7th Ci r
. 2 0 1 0 ). The cour t i s not to “r ew ei gh ev i dence, r esolv e confli cts, deci de questi ons of cr edi

bi li ty , or substi tute [ i ts] j udgment for that of the Commi ssi oner .” Lopez ex rel. Lopez v
. Barnhart, 336 F .3d 535, 539 (7th Ci r
. 2003). Wher e substanti al ev i d enc e s u p p or ts the ALJ’s di s abi li ty deter minati on, w e must affi rm the deci si on
ev en i f “r easonable m i nds could di ffer concer n in g wh e th e r [ the clai m ant] i s di s abled.” Elder v
. Astrue, 529 F

. 3 d 408, 413 (7th Ci r . 2008.) III. ANAL YSIS Bur mester ar gues that t h e ALJ i mpr oper ly r eli ed on boi ler plate language in di scussi ng Bur mester ’s cr edibi li ty wi thout gi v in g a pr oper explanati on for h i s deci si on. S he
co ntends the ALJ fai led to consi d er the enti r e ti me per i od a t i ssue and u n d u l y r eli ed on Bur mester ’s dai ly acti v i ti es as
ev i dence that Bur mester could w or k. The fact that the “ALJ used boi ler plate language does not automati cally under mine or di scr edi t the ALJ's u l t i m ate conclusi on i f he other wi se poi nt s t o infor mati on that j usti fi es hi s cr edib i li ty deter min ati on." Pepper v
. C o l v in , 712 F

. 3d 351,6 No. 18-2106
367–68 (7th Ci r
. 2013). Whi le the ALJ used b oi ler plate l anguage her e, he w ent fur ther and included infor mati on that suppor ted the deci s i on. The four teen-p a g e o pin i on contai ns a detai led

r eci tati on of the medi cal ev i d ence in thi s case. The ALJ d eter

m in ed Bur mester w as unable to p er for m her past r elev a n t
w or k b ut found sh e w as capable of li ght w or k, subj ect to li m i tati ons whi ch included no w or k o n ladder s or scaffolds, being li mi ted to si m ple r outi ne tasks r equi r ing s i mple deci

si ons, and h av i ng to face li mi ted inter acti ons wi th the gener al publi c. Thi s f i n d i n g w as mor e li mi ti n g than that of any state agency doctor or p sychologi st, i llustr ati ng r easoned c onsi der

ati on gi v en to the ev i dence Bur mester pr esented. The ALJ d id not equate Bur mester 's abi li ty to per for m
cer tain acti v i ti es of dai ly l i v ing wi th an abi li ty to w or k full ti me. Instead, h e u s e d h er r epor ted acti v i ti es to a ssess the
cr edib i li ty of her statements concer ning the inte n s it y , per s i stence, or l im iti ng effects of her symptoms consi stent wi th the appli cable r ules at the ti me the ALJ made hi s deci si on in 2014. S ee SS R 96-7p, 1996 S S R LEXIS 4, 1 996 WL 374186 ( J uly 2, 1 996) (su p e r seded pr ospecti v ely by S SR 16-3p, 2016 SS R LEXIS 4, 2016 WL 1 1 19 0 2 9 ( M a r
. 16, 2 016)). 1 W e may di sturb the ALJ's

cr edib i li ty finding only i f i t i s “patently wr ong.” See Curvin v
. Colvin , 778 F

. 3d 645, 651 ( 7 t h C ir

. 2015). Her e, the ALJ’s

1 Burmester ci ted sev era l ca ses i n w h i c h thi s co urt a ppl i ed S SR 1 6-3 p retro a cti v el y, incl udi ng Cole v
. Colv in , 8 31 F .3 d 4 1 1 (7 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 6 ). S ub sequent to Colv in , the S o ci a l S ecuri ty A dmi ni s t r a ti o n ga v e a ddi ti o na l gui da nce tha t rev i e w i n g co urts s ho ul d a ppl y th e regul a t i o n tha t w a s in f o r ce when the A LJ ma de hi s deci si on. See Ev aluation of Sy m p tom s i n D isab ility Claim s , 8 2 Fed. R eg. 4 9 46 3 , 4 9 46 3 -4 (Oct. 2 5 , 2 0 1 7 ). W e fo l l o w tha t gui da nce here a n d a ppl y S S R 9 6 -7 p.No. 18-2106 7
deter minati on w as n o t p atently wr ong because of the many speci fi c r easo n s the ALJ ci ted fr om the r ecor d. See Hall v
. Berryhill , 9 0 6 F .3d 640, 644 (7th Ci r
. 2018) (S ymptom analysi s not “patently wr ong” because the A LJ had “many speci fi c
r easons suppor ted by the ev i dence.”). These include: d i a gnosti c i magi ng documen t in g only mi ld to moder ate findings in Bur mester ’s back, hi ps and feet; n or mal fin dings of str ength and r ange of moti on; and hav i n g intact memor y and good communi cati on ski lls. T h e A LJ also noted that Bur m ester ’s dai l y li fe demonstr ated a hi gh le v e l o f dai ly functi oni ng, “suggesti n g she i s not as l i mi ted a s her a llegati ons of d i sabling symptoms w ould in di cate.” Next, Bur m ester ar gues that the ALJ er r e d in finding s he had moder ate di ffi culti es in he r ab i l i ty t o s u s t a in concentr ati on, per si stence or pace (“CPP”), whi le fail in g to include those li m i tati ons i n the r esi dual capaci ty ev a luati on or qu e sti ons to the v ocati on exper t. It i s w ell-est a b l is hed that “both the hypotheti cal p osed to th e V E a nd the ALJ's RFC assessment must i ncor por ate all of the clai mant's li m i tati ons suppor ted b y the medi cal r ecor d.” V

ar ga v
. Colvin , 7 94 F .3d 809, 813 (7th Ci r
. 2015) (quoti n g Y

urt v
. Colvin , 758 F

. 3d 850, 857 (7th Ci r
. 2014)). H ow ev er

, an ALJ may reasonably rely u pon the opi ni o n o f a
m e d ic al exper t who tr anslates these findings into an RFC d e t er m i nati on. See Johansen v
. Barnhart, 314 F .3d 283, 289 ( 7 t h Ci r
. 2002) (cit in g Meredith v
. Bowen , 833 F .2d 650, 654 ( 7th Ci r
. 1987) (“All that i s r equi r ed i s that the hypotheti cal questi on [ to the VE] be suppor ted by the medi cal ev i dence in the r ecor d.”)). Her e, the ALJ g a v e gr eat w ei ght to the opini on of Dr

. Jer emy Mey er s, who st a t e d in the “S tatement of W or k8 No. 18-2106 Capaci ty” por ti on of hi s assessment that B u r m e ster had the “abi li ty to under stand, r emem b er a nd car r y out s i mple i nstr ucti ons s ubj ect to physi cal l i m i tati ons,” that “main tai ning concentr ati on and attenti on s hould be manageable” and that she “should b e able to wi thstand r outi ne w or k str ess and adapt to typi c al j ob si te changes.” These li mi tati ons w er e gi v en to the

v ocati onal exper t. The ALJ gav e the V E t h e hypotheti cal of a per son “li mi ted to si mple, routi ne, r epeti ti v e task s w h i ch

w ould requi re only si mple w or k-r elated deci si on maki ng and

w ould r equi r e few changes in the r outi ne w or k setti ng wi th no
mor e than occasi onal inter acti on wi th s uper v i sor s, c ow or ker s, and the gener a l publi c.” Ear l i er i n hi s r epor t, Dr

. Mey er s also stated that “[i ]t i s the opi ni on of the exami ner that Ms. B ur mester i s able to dev ote an hour to a n enj oy e d a c t iv i ty such a s readi ng b efor e feeling a need to go on to s omething else.” Bur mester ar gues t h a t t he ALJ i mpr oper ly i gnor ed thi s l i mi tati on on CPP in hi s hypotheti cal to the v ocati o n a l exper t. If D r
. Mey er s intended for thi s statement to be a conclusi on that Bur mes t e r w a s unable to concentr ate f or m or e than an hour at w or k, Dr

. Mey er s w ould hav e i n cluded that li mi tati on in hi s “S tatement of W or k Capaci ty .” Instead Dr

. Mey er s states that maintai ning concentr ati on for Bur mester should be “ m a nageable.” Th e ALJ
summar i zed D r
. Mey er s’ r epor t as concluding that Bur mester
w as able to m ai ntai n concentr a ti on and attentio n
. The ALJ appr opr i ately r eli ed on the n ar r ati v e statement in cr a fti ng the hypotheti cal to the v ocati on exper t and the RFC. See Baldwin v
. Berryhill , 746 F . App'x 580, 584 (7th Ci r
. 2018) (ALJ di d not er r i n i gnor in g a fi n ding that plainti ff w as moder a tely li mi ted in concentr ati on and pace wher e the psychologi st's n a r r a t i v e inNo. 18-2106 9
the s a me r epor t i ndi cated pl a in t i ff had the concentr ati on and pace “necessar y to fulfi ll a no r mal w or kday” and wher e subsequent medi cati on i mpr ov ed plainti ff’s mental health and mood). Ther e w as no other finding in th e r epor t that Bur mester
w as unable to concentr ate on w or k, u nli ke in DeCamp v
. Berryhill , 916 F .3d 671, 675–6 (7th C i r
. 2019). In DeCamp , the plainti ff’s doctor s li sted moder ate di ffi culti es in concentr ati on i n a checkbox secti on of thei r r epor ts, but di d n ot include such li m i tati ons in th e i r n a r r a ti v e conclusi ons. Id

. The ALJ pr esented

a hypotheti c al to the v ocati onal ex p e r t based solely on the

nar r ati v es, omi tti ng any r efer ence to li mi tati ons on concentr a ti on at w or k, i nstead li m i ti ng plainti ff to “unski lled w or k” wi th

no “fast-paced pr oducti on line or tandem tasks.” Id

. at 675. W e noted that we hav e “r epea t e d l y r ej ected the noti on that a hypotheti cal

... confining the clai mant to si m p le, r outi ne tasks and li m i ted i nter a cti ons wi th other s a d e q u ately captur es temper a mental defi ci enci es and li m i tati ons in concentr ati on, per si stence, and pace.” Id

. at 676. Her e, ther e w a s no such checkbox indi cati ng a moder ate l i mi tati on, ther e w as only the S tatement of W

or k Capa c i ty indi cati n g that c oncentr ati ng a t
w or k w ould be manageable for Bur m ester

. The r epor t di d not conclude that w or k must be li mi ted to one hour incr ements to be manageable for Bur mester

. The ALJ’s i nter pr etati on o f Dr

. Mey er s’ r epor t i s also consi stent wi th the r est of the r ecor d. Dr

. Rattan, who rev i ew ed Dr

. Mey er s opi ni on, also concluded ther e w as no li mi tati on on Bur mester ’s concentr ati on. Her mental health tr eatment notes show ed mostly nor mal findings. B u r mester her self stated s he could fini sh what she star ted and follow i nstr ucti ons.10 No. 18-2106
Bur mester also ar gues that the ALJ fai led to pr oper ly wei gh medi cal opin i ons when he r ej ected the opi ni on of her tr eati ng physi ci ans. The ALJ w as r equi r ed to gi v e “ contr olli ng w ei ght” to a tr eati ng physi ci an's medi cal opi n i on on t h e natur e and
s e v er i ty of an i mpai r ment i f i t i s (1) “ w ell-suppor t e d b y medi cally a cceptable c l ini cal and labor ator y di agnosti c techni ques” and (2) “not inconsi ste n t w ith other substanti al

ev i dence.” Larson v
. Astrue, 615 F .3d 744, 749 (7th Ci r
. 2010); 20 C.F .R. § 404.1527(c) ( 2 ) ; S S R 96-2p, 1996 S S R L EXIS 9. The exclusi on of the t r e a t in g p hysi ci a ns w as not unsuppor ted in the ALJ opi ni on. Instead, the ALJ p r ov i ded detai led r easons f or hi s finding that the opi ni ons of Dr

. Bustos and Dr

. C e n t ena w er e not suppor ted by the r ecor d. Dr

. Bustos’ July 2 011 assessment of Bur mester w as the most physi cally li mi ti ng of any of the r e p o r ts gi v en to the ALJ. Dr

. Bustos i ndi cated that Bur mester c ou ld r ar ely li ft ten pounds, r equi r ed a cane, w as unable to bend or stoop, and that h e r p a in w as enough to constantly inter fer e wi th her concentr ati on. The a ssessment, consi s ti ng of a ser i es of checked boxes,

w as i nter nally i nconsi stent. Dr

. B ustos stated that Bur mester could si t and s t a n d for mor e than tw o hour s, but also found she w as unable to si t and stand for mor e than tw o h our s in an ei ght-hour w or kday

. Dr

. Bustos’ own notes also contr adi c ted the assessment, stati ng that Bur mester exhib i ted a nor mal gai t
an d had no di ffi culti es wi th heel and toe w alki ng. Dr

. Bustos

w as also contr adi cted by other medi cal ev i dence. The state agency medi cal consultants found Bur mester capable of li ght

w o r k and she w as obser v ed car ryi ng ten pound w ei ght s up and down stai r s. Fur ther , Bur mester admi tted that she spent thr ee or f our hour s a day r eadi n g, contr a di c ti ng Dr

. Bustos’No. 18-2106 11
finding that her pain constantly inter fer ed wi th her concentr a ti on. Dr . Centena pr ov i ded the most mentally li m i ti ng opi ni on, descr ibing Bur mester as h av ing n o u seful abi li ty to r e g u l ar ly attend w or k or c omplete a nor mal w or kday

. Thi s opi ni on w as i nconsi sten t wi th the r ecor d and Dr

. Centena’s own notes whi ch s h o w e d Bur mester had logi cal thought pr ocesses, functi oni ng memor y

, and intact j udgment. The state psychologi sts found Bur mester w as doi ng well and s table on her medi cati ons for depr essi on and anxi ety

. Addi ti onally

, Bur mester admi tted that she could follow si mple instr u cti ons, and that she cooked, cleaned, shopped and managed money

. IV . CONCLUSION The ALJ di d not i mpr oper ly ev aluate Bur mester ’s cr edib i li ty , nor di d he er r oneously r ej ect the opi ni ons of medi cal
e xper ts. Th e ALJ’s opi ni on that Bur m ester w as not di sabl e d

w as s uppor ted by s u bstanti al ev i dence. The ALJ’s deci si on, and the di str i ct cour t opi ni on, ar e AFFIRMED.