UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DONNA S. HOMISTER, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-19 RLM-SLC

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, )

Acting Commissioner of Social )

Security, )

)

Defendant )

OPINION AND ORDER

Donna Homister appeals the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her

petition for disability benefits. The ALJ, and then the Commissioner, found that

Ms. Homister wasn’t disabled because she retained the residual functional

capacity to perform a limited range of light work and was capable of performing

other work that exists in the national economy. For the reasons that follow, the

court reverses the Commissioner’s decision and remands the matter for further

proceedings. 

The evidence that was before the Administrative Law Judge suggests that

this was a close case. Ms. Homister has been diagnosed with a variety of mental

conditions and suffers from a wide range of physical problems. She has been

diagnosed with depressive order, mild mental retardation, post-traumatic stress

disorder, acute stress disorder, mood disorder, bipolar I disorder severe with

psychotic features, generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol dependence with
psychological dependence, and reading and mathematics disorders. Her IQ has

been calculated as high as 75 and as low as 67. Consulting psychologist Dr. Dan

Bohen opined that Ms. Homister wouldn’t remember what she was asked to do on

a job, concentrate or stay on task, or get along with co-workers or supervisors.

Ms. Homister has been diagnosed with congestive heart failure, bilateral

lower extremity swelling, blindness in her left eye, degenerative disc disease of the

thoracic spince, hypothyroidism, and vitamin D and B12 deficiencies. She was

treated with chemotherapy for Hodgkin’s lymphoma and might continue to

experience effects of that chemotherapy. Ms. Homister underwent cervical fusion

surgery in 2006. 

Ms. Homister’s testimony before the Administrative Law Judge depicted a

life in which nearly every activity is difficult:

• She drives occasionally, but prefers not to do so because she feels

dizzy and faint. 

• She couldn’t get her GED because of problems with reading and

math. Ms. Homister testified that she has no special or vocational

training. She doesn’t use a computer well. 

• She wasn’t allowed to return to her machine operator job after her

2006 auto accident because she had too many restrictions. She tried

an assembler job through a temp agency, but was let go because she

couldn’t understand instructions. 

• She has continual chest pain, which she had recently learned was

2
from congestive heart failure. She takes medicine for that condition.

Her chest pain worsens when she is short of breath, which happens

when she uses stairs or walks more than five or ten steps. She can

stand for ten minutes before having to sit; after ten minutes of sitting,

her back begins to hurt and she needs to stand. She becomes short

of breath taking a shower. Her hand becomes numb and tingly when

she can’t catch her breath, and drops things. She can’t manage her

checkbook. 

• Her legs swell “really big.” A water pill has been prescribed for her.

She sits in a recliner with her feet up. She elevates her feet for twenty

minutes, three times a day. She must rise from a sitting position

carefully, lest circulation problems lead her to fall. 

• She has occasional pain in her eyes. 

• Her back and neck hurt at a severity of seven or eight on a scale of

ten. She takes muscle relaxers and pain pills that reduce, but don’t

eliminate, her neck pain. A chiropractor she was seeing told her that

her right leg is lower than her left, so her right hip pops out; she

didn’t have that problem before her auto accident. Ms. Homister

takes pain medicine for her lower back pain, but can’t take the

stronger medications because of a previous bad reaction. Her legs

become numb and tingly. The pain worsens in cold weather. She feels

lucky to get three hours of sleep and night, and takes a daily nap. 

3
• She has limited mobility in her neck, due to the fusion surgery. A

steel plate was placed in her neck during her that surgery. It hurts to

raise her head to look at the ceiling, to lower her head to lok at

something on a counter or table, and to turn her head to the side.

Because of the blindness in her left eye, Ms. Homister has almost no

peripheral vision. 

• Ms. Homister sees a doctor and takes medication for anxiety and

depression; the medications don’t help when something really bothers

her. She has mood swings. She can concentrate if nothing else is

happening. 

Medical records corroborated, to one extent or another, much of what Ms.

Holister testified to. But much of what was in the records also indicated that the

impact of Ms. Homister’s mental and physical problems might not be as bad as

she said. Among the items the ALJ cited were:

• A doctor’s report that indicates that Ms. Homister's hypothyroidism,

hypertension, and asthma were all well controlled and stable in

November 2011.

• A February 2012 report by an examining physician that says Ms.

Homister did not have respiratory problems, had normal fine motor

skills, hearing, speech, and vision (except for the blindness in her left

eye), and had no remote or recent memory issues.

• Hospital records from April to June 2012 that show that Ms.

4
Homister's chest x-rays were normal and showed only minimal disc

degenerative changes, that her lungs were clear, that her heart rate

and rhythm were normal, and that she didn’t have pitting edema.

• A treating physician’s records indicating that Ms. Homister had no

complaints of chest pain or shortness of breath, that she didn’t have

edema, that her depression was stable and that she was doing fine.

• A consulting psychologist’s suggestion that Ms. Homister fit the mild

mental retardation classification, which was inconsistent with the

record and the findings of other psychologists.

• She had performed semi-skilled jobs, worked while having blindness

in her left eye, and worked for four years after her car accident which

caused a lot of her pain.

• Ms. Homister's lack of interest in seeking therapy for her anger

issues.

A reviewing court must look for a “logical bridge” leading from conflicting

evidence to the Secretary’s decision. Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 834, 837 (7th

Cir. 2014) (“The ALJ . . . must build an accurate and logical bridge between the

evidence and the result to afford the claimant meaningful judicial review of the

administrative findings . . ..”). Under circumstances like those in this case, that

bridge can’t detour around the claimant’s credibility. If the ALJ — to whose

credibility determinations a district court must bow, Curvin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d

645, 651 (7th Cir. 2015) — doesn’t provide at least a skeletal explanation of what

5
portions of the claimant’s testimony were rejected and why, the district court must

remand the case for a fuller explanation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Colvin, 745 F.3d 802

(7th Cir. 2014); Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118 (7th Cir. 2014). 

To explain his rejection — or perhaps partial rejection — of what Ms.

Homister told him, the ALJ used this tautological boilerplate: “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

that they are inconsistent with the above residual functional capacity

assessment.” As the court of appeals has explained, that statement tells us

nothing: it says the reader should look to the ALJ’s ultimate ruling and assume

the ALJ considered and rejected anything that doesn’t fit that ruling. See Parker

v. Astrue, 597 F.3d 920, 922 (7th Cir.2010). 

Inclusion of that boilerplate doesn’t always require remand. See Filus v.

Astrue, 694 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2012) (the use of boilerplate language doesn't

require reversal if the ALJ "otherwise explain[s] his conclusion adequately" and

offers "reasons grounded in the evidence . . ."); see also Shideler v. Astrue, 688

F.3d 306, 311-312 (7th Cir. 2012); Getch v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 473, 483 (7th Cir.

2008). 

With this record, a fuller explanation of the ALJ’s credibility determination

is needed. Ms. Homister’s amalgam of mental and physical problems are such as

to demand explanation of what in Ms. Homister’s testimony was found to be

6
exaggerated or simply not credible, and why. 

A review of the examination of the vocational expert at Ms. Homister’s

hearing before the ALJ shows why this is so. If it were assumed that the blindness

in Ms. Homister’s left eye meant she had no depth perception, the vocational

expert testified, there were no jobs available to her; jobs were available if she had

no depth perception problems. Cf. Voigt v. Colvin, 781 F.3d 871, 879 (7th Cir.

2015) (discussing estimates of available jobs). If Ms. Homister needed to nap thirty

to forty-five minutes during the workday, the vocational expert testified, no jobs

were available; otherwise, jobs existed. But apart from the boilerplate, the ALJ

didn’t mention depth perception or a need for daytime naps in deciding Ms.

Homister’s residual functional capacity. The ALJ didn’t explain why he disbelieved

Ms. Homister as to her need for naps, or whether or why he disbelieved Ms.

Homister’s testimony about her partial blindness. Without such explanations,

there is no logical bridge to convey the reader from the record before the ALJ to

available jobs within the national and regional economies for someone like Ms.

Homister. 

An ALJ’s “failure to adequately explain his or her credibility finding by

discussing specific reasons supported by the record is grounds for reversal.”

Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 937 (7th Cir. 2015). 

Ms. Homister seeks reversal, with an order that benefits be awarded. Such

an order isn’t appropriate. This record lacks a logical bridge, not evidence that

could support a finding that Ms. Homister isn’t disabled within the meaning of the

7
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). See Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d

685, 701 (7th Cir. 2014). The court REVERSES the Commissioner’s decision, and

REMANDS for further proceedings, consistent with this order. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: August 12, 2015 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judge

United States District Court 

8