United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Argued December 11, 2018 

Decided January 9, 2019 

Before 

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge 

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge 

AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge

No. 18-1732 

JOSEPH HAMMERSLOUGH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Central District of Illinois. 

No. 16-2349 

Colin S. Bruce, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Joseph Hammerslough is a 44-year-old former paramedic with multiple 

impairments, including a benign brain tumor, atrial fibrillation, and a history of 

superficial vein thrombosis. He applied for social security benefits, but an 

administrative law judge found him capable of sedentary work and denied his 

applications. Hammerslough failed to obtain relief from the district court and now 

appeals, asserting that the ALJ improperly evaluated his residual functional capacity by 

not considering the severity of his headaches or his impairments in combination and by 

not justifying the finding that he could meet the sitting requirements of sedentary work. 

Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, we affirm. 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 18-1732 Page 2 

I. Background 

Hammerslough currently lives in Champaign, Illinois in his mother’s home. He 

is obese and has several impairments including a benign brain tumor, atrial fibrillation, 

sleep apnea, a history of seizures, a history of superficial vein thrombosis, and ptosis (a 

drooping eyelid). He asserts that he became disabled in May 2010, one year after 

suffering a mild head trauma (unspecified in the record) and the discovery of a 

dermoid1 brain tumor. In mid-2013, he applied for disability insurance benefits and 

supplemental security income, asserting that he became unable to work on May 11, 

2010 due to his impairments. His applications were denied both initially and on 

reconsideration, and he later requested and received a hearing before an administrative 

law judge. His date last insured was December 31, 2015. This appeal targets the ALJ’s 

evaluation of his headaches and ability to sit, so we recite only the facts relating to those 

conditions. 

a. Headaches 

In 2009, Hammerslough experienced severe headaches and vomiting and took 

himself to the hospital. Doctors there examined him and discovered a benign brain 

tumor. His symptoms eventually resolved, and neurologist Huan Wang opined that the 

tumor was not likely their cause. 

In 2012, Hammerslough reported headaches to doctors at the Christie Clinic, and 

around that time (the record is not more specific) he obtained a prescription for Percocet 

to treat those headaches. In early 2013, he began seeing neurologist Barry Riskin. At 

their first appointment, Dr. Riskin refilled Hammerslough’s Percocet prescription. At 

the second, Dr. Riskin noted that Percocet “appears to be helpful [for his headaches] 

and is being used sparingly.” His notes for the third appointment state that 

Hammerslough’s headaches were frequent but pain control was adequate. And at the 

last appointment, Dr. Riskin noted his concern that Hammerslough had been having 

severe early-morning headaches that necessitated taking pain medication. 

b. Sitting 

 

1 As the word suggests, “dermoid” tumors result from the growth of displaced 

skin, hair, or nail cells, and are typically benign. 
No. 18-1732 Page 3 

 Hammerslough was diagnosed with and began treatment for superficial vein 

thrombosis in 2014. An ultrasound revealed no deep vein thrombosis. He underwent 

laser ablation treatment with Dr. Jeremy Youse, and afterwards reported doing well, 

though he said his pain returned within a few days. At his second follow-up, he 

reported significant relief with a drug called lovenox: when taken as prescribed, he 

assessed his leg pain as 0 out of 10. 

The medical record does not describe any other lower-extremity impairments or 

sitting-related impairments, nor do any medical experts comment on Hammerslough’s 

ability to sit. At his 2015 hearing before the ALJ, Hammerslough testified that swelling 

and blood clots in his legs (conditions that he said have gradually worsened over the 

years) prevented him from sitting for long periods. His mother corroborated his 

complaints of discomfort, saying that he was “not supposed to sit for more than 45 

minutes to an hour” at a time. 

c. ALJ’s Ruling 

After the hearing, the ALJ applied the standard five-step analysis, see 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 404.1520, 416.920, determined that Hammerslough could perform sedentary work, 

and found him not disabled. The ALJ found that Hammerslough had not worked 

gainfully since May 11, 2010 (Step 1); that he had severe impairments, including a brain 

tumor, a remote history of seizure-like episodes, atrial fibrillation, obstructive sleep 

apnea, obesity, a history of superficial vein thrombosis, congenital right-side ptosis, and 

extraocular movement disorder (Step 2); and that these impairments did not equal a 

listed impairment (Step 3). See “Listing of Impairments,” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, 

App. 1. The ALJ then concluded that Hammerslough had the residual functional 

capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work, subject to additional limitations, and that, 

although he could not perform any of his past jobs (Step 4), based on the MedicalVocational Guidelines in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2, he could perform other 

jobs available in the national economy (Step 5). 

In determining Hammerslough’s RFC, the ALJ relied on over thirty treatment 

records made by more than a dozen treating physicians spanning over five years, as 

well as the opinion of a consulting physician. The ALJ found that while the medical 

records indicated mild to moderate impairments, Hammerslough had not met his 

burden of establishing that he could perform no sustained work activity. The ALJ also 

discredited Hammerslough’s assertions about the severity of his headaches, sleep 
No. 18-1732 Page 4 

apnea, and lower leg pain because the records showed that each was adequately 

managed by medication or medical devices. 

The Appeals Council denied Hammerslough’s request for review, and the 

district court upheld the ALJ’s decision. 

II. Analysis 

 On appeal, Hammerslough argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his RFC by 

failing to substantiate those findings that relate to (1) his headaches, (2) his ability to sit 

for long periods of time, and (3) the effects of his various impairments in combination. 

We review the ALJ’s decision for substantial evidence, see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), deciding 

whether the evidence relied upon is such that a reasonable person might accept it as 

adequate. Walker v. Berryhill, 900 F.3d 479, 482 (7th Cir. 2018). 

 Hammerslough first disputes the ALJ’s finding that his headaches were merely 

“sporadic,” arguing that he complained of headaches at nearly every neurologist 

appointment. He relatedly argues that the ALJ improperly discounted the severity of 

his headaches and his need, on their account, to lie down and take Percocet. 

These arguments misread the ALJ’s rulings. Hammerslough mischaracterizes the 

ALJ’s use of the word “sporadic”: the ALJ was not talking about headaches 

individually, but rather about a whole suite of impairments (dizziness, headaches, 

difficulty communicating, and falls) when finding that “the medical records show only 

sporadic mention of these complaints.” (italics added) The ALJ supported this finding by 

noting that some of these impairments had virtually no support in the medical records: 

Hammerslough had no trouble communicating, and no medical exam had ever 

revealed any balance difficulties. Likewise, Hammerslough’s assertion that the ALJ did 

not consider the effect of his headaches is meritless. The ALJ summarized over thirty 

relevant medical reports and then proceeded to address and evaluate Hammerslough’s 

headache complaints alongside his most recent neurologist appointments. The ALJ 

found that his headaches were not continuous and when they did occur, they were 

well-managed by Percocet. 

Hammerslough also argues that the ALJ erred in concluding that he could 

perform the sitting requirements of sedentary work. He insists that the ALJ did not 

adequately substantiate the finding that he could sit for the requisite six hours in an 

eight-hour day and maintains that the evidence shows that he cannot. He says that he 
No. 18-1732 Page 5 

complained to his doctors about his difficulties sitting, pointing out, for instance, that he 

even had to ask the ALJ for permission to stand during his hearing. 

Hammerslough is wrong that the ALJ did not justify the finding that he could 

meet the sitting requirements. The ALJ discussed the effects and treatment of 

Hammerslough’s superficial venous thrombosis—the only impairment that 

Hammerslough identified as limiting his ability to sit. The ALJ appropriately relied on 

the medical records, which show that as recently as January 2015, after a successful laser 

ablation treatment, Hammerslough’s leg pain was at a “0” when he took lovenox as 

prescribed. Additionally, Hammerslough never complained that he could not sit for 

long periods of time prior to his hearing, nor are there physicians’ notes (let alone 

diagnoses) to that effect. 

Hammerslough also contends that the ALJ failed to adequately consider the 

combined effect of his various impairments. He asserts that the ALJ considered his 

impairments only separately, and then afterwards, in summary fashion, “simply 

lumped eight conditions together.” He adds that the ALJ should have asked a medical 

expert to evaluate the effects of his impairments taken together. 

The ALJ discussed the combination of Hammerslough’s impairments three 

times, though it is fair to say he did not say much. His first discussion of the combined 

effect of Hammerslough’s impairments is in the context of obesity. The ALJ noted that 

“obesity in combination with another impairment may or may not increase the severity 

or functional limitations of the other impairment.” In this case, the ALJ found that it did 

not. In two other instances, the ALJ addressed Hammerslough’s impairments in 

combination. First, he found that Hammerslough’s tumor, sleep apnea, atrial 

fibrillation, complaints of dizziness, and headaches limited him to sedentary jobs “that 

do not require climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds or even moderate exposure to 

hazards.” He also found that the combination of obesity, superficial venous thrombosis 

and leg pain limited him to sedentary work “with only occasional postural functions.” 

The ALJ could have said more, but what he said is sufficient, given the impression left 

by the medical record that Hammerslough’s impairments are generally well controlled. 

Finally, Hammerslough argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating his credibility. 

Hammerslough points out that the ALJ discounted his claims as “not entirely 

credible”—a phrase that this court repeatedly has derided as “meaningless boilerplate.” 

Parker v. Astrue, 597 F.3d 920, 922 (7th Cir. 2010). 
No. 18-1732 Page 6 

The phrase “not entirely credible” is meaningless boilerplate only when the ALJ 

substitutes it for a proper, full-bodied explanation of why credibility is lacking. Here, 

the ALJ went on to identify and explain all of his credibility findings and grounded 

each of them in the record. For example, the ALJ found Hammerslough’s testimony of 

continuous, debilitating headaches to be contrary to reports that Hammerslough told 

his neurologist Dr. Riskin that he took his headache medicine (Percocet) “no more than 

twice a week,” and that “pain control is generally adequate.” The ALJ found his 

assertion of severe balance issues not credible, because despite multiple exams, the 

medical records did not reveal balance problems. The ALJ found his assertion that he 

has difficulty communicating unsupported, because Hammerslough never discussed 

communication difficulties with his physicians, and the medical records showed that he 

communicated normally. Finally, the ALJ found not credible Hammerslough’s assertion 

that his blood clots had worsened and prevented him from sitting; the medical records 

showed that his superficial vein thrombosis treatment was successful and that he 

experienced no pain so long as he took his prescribed medication. Because “we give the 

ALJ's credibility finding ‘special deference’ and will overturn it only if it is ’patently 

wrong,’” Summers v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 523, 528 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Eichstadt v. 

Astrue, 534 F.3d 663, 667–68 (7th Cir. 2008)), we will not disturb the ALJ’s credibility 

findings here. 

AFFIRMED