The Court decided six Social Security cases in July, one of which produced a remand.

A quick note about recent appointments. Judge Pryor, who has been serving as a circuit judge since December, was on panels this month in Griffin, Baptist, Ramos, and Equitz, all of which were affirmed. Judge Pryor was on a panel that remanded a Social Security case in March but has affirmed in each case since. Judge Lee, who is also a recent addition to the Seventh Circuit bench, was on the panel remanding Greer this month but has otherwise affirmed each Social Security case during his tenure.

I mentioned in a previous column that our circuit has one vacancy due to Judge Kanne’s death in June 2022. There is news on this front. U.S. Magistrate Judge Joshua P. Kolar, currently sitting in the Northern District of Indiana, was nominated by President Biden in July to fill Judge Kanne’s seat.

Without further ado, here are July’s Seventh Circuit cases:

Greer v. Kijakazi (remanded, unpublished)

Judges Brennan, St. Eve, and Lee
July 14, 2023

Greer contested an ALJ’s decision that she could return to her past work based on a consulting doctor’s opinion. New evidence from a podiatrist showed diminished lower extremity strength, and Greer’s preexisting impairments included diabetic neuropathy. The consulting doctor did not review this evidence, and the ALJ did not comment on it. The Commissioner argued that Greer did not meet her burden of proof because every medical opinion aligned with the ALJ’s RFC, but Greer’s burden “was to produce medical evidence, not an opinion.”

The Court emphasized that on remand “the ALJ need not conduct another full hearing or reopen the record except insofar as it is necessary to ensure a proper review of” the new evidence, and submit any “significant, new, and potentially decisive findings” to expert scrutiny.

Cromwell v. Kijakazi (affirmed, published)

Judges Easterbrook, Rovner, and Lee
July 7, 2023

Cromwell challenged whether an ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and whether her bipolar disorder was inadequately considered where it was not identified at Step Two. The case involved prior remand history, 184 exhibits, and 17 medical opinions. The Court deferred to the ALJ’s “very thorough” and “meticulous” citation of evidence and the weight he accorded the opinions. The ALJ’s recitation was not exhaustive, but “he was not required to list everything he considered.” The Court also allowed the ALJ to use Cromwell’s part-time babysitting “in his big-picture evaluation of her capabilities,” as well as her ability to care for her own children. And while the Court “might come to different judgments about whether spending hours on idle tasks on Facebook accurately reflects on one’s ability to concentrate on productive tasks in the economy,” it deferred to the ALJ’s adverse conclusion.

Griffin v. Kijakazi (affirmed, unpublished)

Judges Easterbrook, Scudder, and Pryor
July 7, 2023

Griffin was involved in three car accidents and suffered from spine impairments, headaches, and mental health limitations. In assessing an RFC, the ALJ evaluated opinion evidence based on its consistency with the record and properly rejected some as too vague or reliant on subjective reports that conflicted with objective evidence. Griffin “did not pursue continuous care” for her claims of disabling pain, did not allege daily headaches during pain management consultations, and said physical therapy reduced the severity and frequency of headaches. Some exam findings were normal and others abnormal. The ALJ was not “patently wrong” to reject Griffin’s subjective statements. And the ALJ gave reasonable explanations for rejecting Griffin’s treating doctor’s opinions. Griffin did not allege which additional limitations would be appropriate based on other opinion evidence that the ALJ did not accept in full.

Baptist v. Kijakazi (affirmed, published)

Judges Hamilton, Kirsch, and Pryor
July 14, 2023

Baptist was involved in a car accident with residual back and neck injuries, headaches, and a history of aneurysms. She argued that the ALJ who denied her disability claims “played doctor” by interpreting new imaging and aneurysm surgery notes and improperly rejected treating source opinions.

Regarding the new evidence, Baptist’s treatment notes showed that it would not have altered the State agency consultants’ findings. She made a full recovery without ongoing symptoms and notes about new imaging—written in layperson’s terms and not “the ‘medical mumbo jumbo’ [the Court has] warned judges not to interpret”—did not reflect additional problems. There was “evidence of mild changes” in imaging, but it was reviewed by Baptist’s physician and “unaccompanied by any new symptoms, limitations, or treatment recommendations.”

As for the treating source opinions, a treatment note stated they were based on Baptist’s subjective reports, one provider suspected she was malingering, and normal exam findings and “conservative treatment” were inconsistent with the opined limitations.

Ramos v. Kijakazi (affirmed, unpublished)

Judges Easterbrook, Wood, and Pryor
July 17, 2023

Ramos, diagnosed with various mental health impairments, was denied benefits by an ALJ based on medical expert testimony. Ramos argued that the expert over-relied on his cognitive functioning, but the Court declined to “reweigh evidence,” stating that “[b]ecause [the expert’s] opinion accounted for the full extent of Ramos’s mental impairment evidence, Ramos’s challenge to the completeness or persuasiveness of that opinion falls short.” While the ALJ did not mention all evidence, relying on an expert who considered the evidence was sufficient. And even if the ALJ did not clearly connect the RFC limitations to Ramos’ impairments, Ramos did not hypothesize more appropriate restrictions and, per the Court, “the record could have supported fewer limitations” so any error was in Ramos’ favor.

The final issue was a “close question.” The ALJ assessed that Ramos could tolerate normal supervisory interactions, but also limited him to occasional, superficial interactions. The Court held that the substantial evidence standard resolved the question because the vocational expert cited jobs “that required only minimal supervision.”

The Court concluded that Ramos “is free to try his luck with a new application” based on newer evidence.

Equitz v. Kijakazi (affirmed, unpublished)

Judges Easterbrook, Scudder, and Pryor
July 20, 2023

An ALJ rejected Equitz’ claims that he could not return to his past job as a truck driver based on a lack of imaging of his degenerative disc and joint disease, normal exams, and medication refusal. On appeal, Equitz argued that the ALJ should have inquired into the absence of imaging or more aggressive treatment, explaining that he is wary of radiation and potential side effects. But Equitz, who was represented, did not mention these aversions to the ALJ and “has not shown these to be legitimate fears nor established that they excuse him from submitting objective medical evidence.” Equitz declined a consultative physician’s recommendation of x-ray testing, forwent a psychological evaluation, and submitted no medical evidence or opinions to contradict the State agency reviewing physicians’ opinions.

While Equitz claimed some medical records were missing from the record, he was represented and did not provide a reason to disregard the presumption that he put forth his best case with counsel’s assistance. Though Equitz argued that his counsel was ineffective, there is no constitutional right to counsel in Social Security proceedings.

Thanks for reading!

Ryan Tank
ryantank@spectorandlenz.com
Spector & Lenz, P.C.
Chicago, IL