Opinion ID: 3003116
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ziegler’s Credibility

Text: Ziegler next argues that the ALJ erred in discrediting his descriptions of his own symptoms. This court defers to the credibility determination of the ALJ; it will be upheld unless it is “patently wrong.” See Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 678 (7th Cir. 2008). The credibility determination here was based on the following: according to the ALJ, “several treating physicians” disagreed with Ziegler’s assessment of his symptoms, Ziegler seemed to make two complete recoveries before quickly reinjuring himself upon returning to work, and in his meetings with doctors, Ziegler showed a suspicious familiarity with the legal issues surrounding his legal claims. Although an ALJ may reasonably disbelieve a claimant’s testimony when it is contradicted by medical evidence, see Getch v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 473, 483 (7th Cir. 2008), Ziegler argues that the ALJ misunderstood the medical evidence. He cites Pankratz’s report first, but, as discussed above, the ALJ properly relied on that report. The ALJ did err regarding what it took to be the observations of Dr. Dopf, the back surgeon, and Batson, the Nurse Practitioner in Dr. Dopf’s office. Dr. Dopf declined to provide a functional capacity evaluation because he was not Ziegler’s primary care physician. That is not the same as refusing “to assign any limitations at all.” And the Commissioner concedes that the ALJ misunderstood Batson’s comment. She said only that Ziegler’s cervical pathology was inconsistent with some of his symptoms; she did not say that all of his symptoms were inconsistent with his spinal pathology. But those errors do not require reversal. So long as there is some record support for the credibility determination, we will not reverse. Berger, 516 F.3d at 546. Here, despite the errors, there was sufficient medical evidence in the record No. 08‐3914 Page 9 on which the ALJ properly relied in discrediting Ziegler’s testimony. Combined with the ALJ’s observations that Ziegler quickly reinjured himself after two attempts to return to work and that he “appeared very conversant with the legalities” involved in his claims, the ALJ’s credibility finding was not patently wrong. D. Jobs Available to Someone with Ziegler’s Characteristics Ziegler’s final arguments are that ALJ erred at step four when he found that Ziegler could perform his past relevant work and at step five when he found, in the alternative, that jobs exist in significant numbers that Ziegler could perform. Ziegler is correct that the ALJ’s step‐four finding was error because the VE had testified only that Ziegler could perform the job of post office clerk as defined by the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. No evidence supported a finding that Ziegler could perform the job he had actually done. But as Ziegler acknowledges, this error is immaterial if we uphold the ALJ’s alternative finding at step five. We have already upheld the findings on which the ALJ based the hypothetical question posed to the VE and Ziegler has not questioned the reliability of the VE’s testimony that jobs existed in significant numbers that a person described in the hypothetical could perform. See Britton v. Astrue 521 F.3d 799, 803 (7th Cir. 2008). Before relying on that testimony, it might have been preferable for the ALJ to mention the VE’s testimony regarding Ziegler’s performance on a single test performed by Pankratz, the physical therapist. But as we explained above, the ALJ properly relied on Pankratz’s ultimate conclusion, so considering Ziegler’s performance on just one of many tests was unnecessary. Thus, the ALJ’s step‐five finding was supported by substantial evidence. See Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 845‐46 (7th Cir. 2007).