Nonprecedential Disposition

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
ArguedDecember14,2011
DecidedFebruary7,2012
Before
RICHARDA.POSNER,CircuitJudge
DANIELA.MANION,CircuitJudge
DIANEP.WOOD,CircuitJudge

No.112274
LAROLDL.RICHISON,
PlaintiffAppellant,
v.
MICHAELJ.ASTRUE,
CommissionerofSocialSecurity,
DefendantAppellee.
AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrict
CourtfortheWesternDistrictofWisconsin.
No.11CV08
BarbaraB.Crabb,
Judge.
ORDER
LaroldRichison,a51yearoldkidneytransplantrecipientwithahistoryoffoot
problems,appealsfromthedistrictcourt’sdecisionupholdingthedenialofhisapplication
fordisabilitybenefits.BecausesubstantialevidencesupportstheCommissioner’s
determination,weaffirmthejudgment.
Richisonstruggledwithnumerousphysicalproblemsinrecentyears,chiefamong
themkidneyfailureandseverestiffnessinbothofhisbigtoes.Hiskidneyproblemsforced
himtoquithisjobasahardwarestoreclerkin1996,leadingtoasevenyearperiodwhenhe
receiveddisabilityinsurance.Hehadsuccessfulkidneytransplantsurgeryin1999andtold
doctorsasrecentlyas2009thathiskidneyfunctionwas“good.”Nonetheless,Richison’s
nephrologist,Dr.GarySchwochau,wroteinalettertoRichison’sattorneyinearly2009that
NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITION
Tobecitedonlyinaccordancewith
Fed.R.App.P.32.1

-- 1 of 5 --

No.112274 Page2
Richison’skidneyswilldeteriorateslowlyinthecomingyearsandthateventuallyhewill
needdialysistreatment.SchwochauopinedthatthecombinedeffectsofRichison’sillnesses
“precludehimfromdoingextensivephysicalexertion.”
Regardinghistoes,Richisonsufferedfromfootpainforyearsbeforedoctors
diagnosedhimin2007withhalluxrigidus,apainfuldeformitythatlimitsmotioninthe
jointatthebaseofthebigtoe.SeeD ORLAND’SILLUSTRATEDM EDICAL D ICTIONARY818
(32ded.2012).Hehadsurgeryonhisrightbigtoein2007andonhisleftbigtoein2008.
Afterthefirstsurgery,hewastoldtoelevatehisrightfootabovehishearttoprevent
swelling;laterexaminationsshowedminimalswelling.Hispodiatrist,Dr.PatrickYoon,
notedthatRichison’scirculationwas“intact”asofSeptember2009andmadenomentionof
legelevationinhistreatmentnotes,butinashortletterthreemonthslatertoRichison’s
attorney,heopinedthatRichisonhad“decreasedcirculationinbothlowerextremities”and
hadto“keephislegselevatedmuchofthedaytoeliminateswellinginhislower
extremities.”YoonwrotethatRichisonwas“disabledatthistime.”
Richison’sotherinfirmitiesincludediabetes,hypertension,andaleftshoulderinjury
thatrequiredsurgery.Heinjuredtheshoulderafterfallingoutofadeerstandwhile
huntingin2008.Shortlyafterthesurgery,hereportedsufferingshoulderpainwhileclosing
hiscar’shood,thoughdoctorsfoundnoevidencethatheaggravatedtheinjury.
RichisonfiledhisdisabilityclaiminMay2007,allegingaperiodofdisabilitystarting
inDecember2004.Afterhisclaimwasdenied,hereceivedahearingbeforean
administrativelawjudgeatwhichhetestifiedthatswellinginhisfeetforcedhimtospend
mostofhisdayinareclinerwithhisfeetelevatedtothelevelofhisheart.Hereported
spendingminimaltimeonhisfeetandhavingdifficultydriving.HealsotoldtheALJthat
hetravelsonceeveryweektotwoweeksfromhishomeinnorthwestWisconsintoa
Minneapolistransplantclinicforfollowuptreatmentforhiskidney.Eachvisittakesfiveto
sixhours,includingtraveltime.TheALJalsoheardtestimonyfromavocationalexpert,
whoopinedthatthereweresedentaryjobsavailableintheeconomythatapersonwith
Richison’srestrictionscouldperform.WhenquestionedfurtherbyRichison’sattorney,the
expertacknowledgedthatmanysedentaryjobsdonotallowemployeestoworkwiththeir
feetelevatedatoraboveheartlevel,thoughhetoldtheALJthatsomeemployersallowit.
InrejectingRichison’sclaimofdisability,theALJconcludedthathisvarious
ailmentsdidnotprecludehimfromdoingsedentarywork.Navigatingthroughthe
requiredfivestepanalysis,see20C.F.R.§§404.1520(a)(4),416.920(a)(4),theALJdetermined
thatRichisonhadnotworkedsincehisallegedonsetdate(stepone);histoestiffness
constitutedasevereimpairment(steptwo);hisimpairmentsdidnotmeetorequalalisted
impairment(stepthree);hecouldnotperformhispastwork(stepfour);butthereexisted

-- 2 of 5 --

No.112274 Page3
jobsintheeconomythathecoulddo(stepfive).Aspartofhisanalysis,theALJconcluded
thatRichisonretainedtheresidualfunctionalcapacity(“RFC”)toperformthefullrangeof
sedentarywork,seeid.§404.1567(a).HedidnotcreditYoon’sopinionthatRichisonhadto
elevatehislegsbecause,heconcluded,thatopinionwascontradictedbyothermedical
evidence.AndhediscountedYoon’sopinionthatRichisonwas“disabled”asanultimate
determinationfortheCommissionertomake.TheALJalsodiscreditedRichison’stestimony
abouthisphysicallimitations,notingthatRichisonwentdeerhuntingandworkedonhis
car.AsforhisstepfivedeterminationthatthereexistedjobsRichisoncouldperform,the
ALJreliedsolelyontheMedicalVocationalGuidelines(“thegrids”),seeid.§404,Subpt.P,
App.2,anddidnotmentionthevocationalexpert’stestimony.
Onappeal,RichisonchallengesfouraspectsoftheALJ’sdecision,whichwereview
asthefinalwordoftheCommissionerbecausetheAppealsCouncildeclinedreview.Scott
v.Astrue,647F.3d734,739(7thCir.2011).Welimitourreviewtothereasoningsetforthin
theALJ’swrittendecision,seeJelinekv.Astrue,662F.3d805,811(7thCir.2011),assessing
whetherthedecisionissupportedbysubstantialevidence.42U.S.C.§405(g);O’Connor
Spinnerv.Astrue,627F.3d614,618(7thCir.2010).Substantialevidenceissuch“evidenceas
areasonablemindmightacceptasadequatetosupportaconclusion.”Skinnerv.Astrue,478
F.3d836,841(7thCir.2007)(quotingRichardsonv.Perales,402U.S.389,401(1971)).
First,RichisoncontendsthattheALJerredindiscountingYoon’sopinionthathe
mustelevatehislegsallday—arequirementthatwouldlimitgreatly(andperhaps
eliminate)hisemploymentprospects—andhisconclusionthatRichisonis“disabled.”Yoon
washistreatingpodiatrist,andRichisonarguesthattherewasnoevidencetoundermine
hisopinion.Heinsiststhatthoseopinionsshouldhavebeenaffordedcontrollingweight.
Butatreatingphysician’sopinionreceivescontrollingweightonlywhenitisnot
“inconsistentwiththeothersubstantialevidence”intherecord,20C.F.R.§404.1527(d)(2);
seeScott,647F.3dat739;Punziov.Astrue,630F.3d704,710(7thCir.2011).TheALJdidnot
errhereindeterminingthatYoon’sopinionconflictedwithothermedicalevidence,
includinghisowntreatmentnotes.ThoughYoonopinedinhisletterthatRichisonhad
decreasedcirculationinhislegs,whichneededtobeelevatedtoeliminateswelling,his
treatmentnotesfromSeptember2009reportedthatRichison’scirculationwas“intact.”
Otherdoctors’evaluationsalsodescribedswellinginhisfeetaseitherminimalor
nonexistent.Yoonrecommended“conservativetreatment,”includingsupportstostabilize
Richison’sfeetwhenhewalked,buthemadenomentioninhistreatmentnotesofRichison
needingtoelevatehisfeet.AnALJmaydeclinetocreditatreatingphysician’sopinionifit
is“internallyinconsistent,”Skarbekv.Barnhart,390F.3d500,503(7thCir.2004);seealso
Schmidtv.Astrue,496F.3d833,842(7thCir.2007);Flynnv.Astrue,513F.3d788,793(8thCir.
2008).Thatwasthecasehere.AndasforYoon’sopinionthatRichisonwas“disabled,”the
ALJcorrectlylabeledthatasanultimatedeterminationreservedtotheCommissioner.

-- 3 of 5 --

No.112274 Page4
See20C.F.R.§404.1527(e)(1);Johansenv.Barnhart,314F.3d283,289(7thCir.2002);Vossenv.
Astrue,612F.3d1011,1015(8thCir.2010).
NextRichisoncitestheALJ’sdeterminationthatRichison’sassertionsabouthis
limitationswere“notcredibletotheextenttheyareinconsistentwiththeaboveresidual
functionalcapacityassessment.”Richisoncomplainsthatsuchaconclusionwasmerelya
recitationof“boilerplate.”Wehavederidedthissortofboilerplateasinadequate,byitself,
tosupportacredibilityfinding.SeePunzio,630F.3dat709;Spivav.Astrue,628F.3d346,348
(7thCir.2010);Parkerv.Astrue,597F.3d920,921–22(7thCir.2010).ButinthiscasetheALJ
saidmore,questioningRichison’srepresentationthathecoulddonomorethannapand
rest,giventhathewenthuntingandapparentlyattemptedtoworkonhiscar.SeeBergerv.
Astrue,516F.3d539,545(7thCir.2008)(upholdingALJ’sadversecredibilitydetermination
regardingconstraintsimposedonclaimantbybackpainwhereclaimantperformed
householdchores,wentfishing,anddrovelongdistancestoseehisgirlfriend).TheALJalso
citedvariousmedicalreportsshowingthatRichison’sfootconditionimprovedovertime.
ByexplainingwhichofRichison’sstatementshedidnotcreditandwhy,theALJprovideda
sufficientbasisforhiscredibilityassessment.SeeCastilev.Astrue,617F.3d923,929–30(7th
Cir.2010).
RichisonnextassertsthattheALJdidnotconsidertheevidenceasawholein
makinghisRFCassessment.AnRFCdeterminationmustaccountforallimpairments,even
thosethatarenotsevereinisolation,see20C.F.R.§404.1545(a)(2);Terryv.Astrue,580F.3d
471,477(7thCir.2009),andanALJmustconsiderthecumulativeeffectoftheclaimant’s
impairments,seeParker,597F.3dat923;Villanov.Astrue,556F.3d558,563(7thCir.2009).In
thiscase,however,theALJdemonstratedadequateconsiderationofalltheevidence;he
wrotethathegave“carefulconsideration”to“theentirerecord”and“consideredall
symptoms”andalsocreditedtheopinionofDr.Schwochau,Richison’snephrologist,who
opinedthatthecombinedeffectofRichison’sillnessespreventedhimfromexertinghimself
extensively.SeeGetchv.Astrue,539F.3d473,483(7thCir.2008).
Finally,RichisonassailstheALJ’suseofthegridsindeterminingthatjobsexistedin
theeconomythathecouldperform.ButRichison’sargumentonthispointrehasheshis
othercontentionswithoutexplainingwhytheuseofthegridswasinappropriate.TheALJ
concludedthatRichison’simpairmentsaffectedonlyhisabilitytoexerthimselfanddidnot
impose“nonexertional”limitations—suchasalackofconcentrationormemory—andhis
useofthegridsthuswasentirelyproper.See20C.F.R.§404.1569a(b),(c);McKinzeyv.
Astrue,641F.3d884,892(7thCir.2011).
RichisonalsoattemptstoarguethattheALJerredbyfailingtoaddressthepotential
effectofhisbiweeklytripstothetransplantclinicinMinneapolisonhisemployment

-- 4 of 5 --

No.112274 Page5
prospects.ButRichisonhasnotdevelopedthisargumentonappealanddidnotpresentitat
allinthedistrictcourt,thuswaivingit.SeeSchoenfeldv.Apfel,237F.3d788,793(7thCir.
2001);Smithv.Comm’rofSoc.Sec.,631F.3d632,637(3dCir.2010).
AFFIRMED.

-- 5 of 5 --