## Facts

- Susan R. Spicher sought Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability based on multiple conditions, including morbid obesity, fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease, COPD, and osteoarthritis.
- She filed in 2010 and claimed disability dating to 2003; after a 2012 hearing, an ALJ found her not disabled from August 1, 2003 to May 30, 2012.
- A federal district court remanded because the ALJ had not properly considered obesity, both independently and in combination with other impairments.
- On remand, at a May 25, 2016 hearing, Spicher narrowed the relevant period to whether she was disabled by December 31, 2008, when her insured status expired.
- The ALJ consulted a new medical expert who largely repeated existing medical findings, and the ALJ stated that reconsideration of obesity had not changed her conclusions.
- The ALJ again found Spicher not disabled until September 20, 2012, assessing an RFC for sedentary work with occasional postural activities and relying on vocational testimony identifying three jobs.
- The district court affirmed the post-remand denial, and Spicher appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the ALJ violated due process by prejudging the remanded proceeding or displaying disqualifying bias.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Spicher was not disabled before September 20, 2012, including the RFC and step-five job findings in light of obesity and other impairments.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit held that the ALJ did not display the level of favoritism or antagonism required to establish a due process violation.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed because the denial of benefits for the pre-September 20, 2012 period was not supported by substantial evidence.
- The court remanded for further administrative proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A disability claimant is entitled to a hearing before a fair decisionmaker; disqualification requires a showing of deep-seated favoritism or antagonism making fair judgment impossible.
- An ALJ must build a logical bridge between the evidence and the RFC and may not ignore lines of evidence that conflict with the ALJ’s conclusions.
- Obesity must be evaluated both independently and in combination with other impairments, including impairments deemed non-severe in isolation.
- Step-five findings based on vocational testimony depend on an RFC supported by a reasoned discussion of the record and the combined functional effects of all impairments.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit rejected Spicher’s bias challenge but reversed and remanded because the ALJ failed to adequately confront conflicting medical evidence and failed to meaningfully analyze obesity’s combined effects when concluding Spicher could perform sedentary work before September 20, 2012.


Spicher v. Berryhill, 898 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2018)