Public Health — disability benefits

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Public Health — disability benefits

Where a claimant could perform light work despite back problems, his disability benefits were properly denied.

“Filus argues that the ALJ unreasonably discounted his testimony about the effects of his pain. An ALJ may not reject a claimant’s testimony about limitations on his daily activities solely because his testimony is unsupported by the medical evidence. See Indoranto v. Barnhart, 374 F.3d 470, 474 (7th Cir. 2004); Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 871 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, however, the ALJ considered Filus’s testimony about the limiting effects of his pain along with his testimony that he regularly completed his daily household activities without any pain medication—not even over-the-counter products. In assessing a claimaint’s allegations of disabling pain, an ALJ must consider the claimant’s daily activities and use of pain medications, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 96-7p; Clifford, 227 F.3d at 871-72; Luna v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 687, 691 (7th Cir. 1994). In light of the ALJ’s explanation, we cannot say that his credibility determination was patently wrong. See Elder, 529 F.3d at 414.”

Affirmed.

12-1164 Filius v. Astrue

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cosbey, Mag. J., Wood, J.