United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-1632 BRENDA K. WARNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. No. 1:22-cv-00166-WCL — William C. Lee, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 2024 — DECIDED APRIL 8, 2024 ____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Administrative law judges who decide claims for social security disability benefits often find themselves overloaded with work—with many more cases to decide than hours available in a day. With so much at stake for applicants, the responsibility brings with it a weighty ob- ligation of diligence. So the challenge for an ALJ becomes 2 No. 23-1632 combining diligence with efficiency, including in preparing written orders of decision. Before us is Brenda Warnell’s challenge to an ALJ’s deter- mination that she is not disabled and therefore not entitled to disability benefits or supplemental security income. By any measure, the ALJ’s written decision is clear, thorough, and commendable. Yet Warnell claims that the ALJ needed to do more, including by avoiding summaries of the medical evi- dence and instead providing hyper-detailed physician-by- physician accounts supported by fulsome pinpoint citations to medical records. Not only is longer better, it is legally nec- essary to withstand appellate review—or so the argument goes. We reject this contention as it stands at complete odds with what an ALJ must do to support its decision with sub- stantial evidence, a standard that the Supreme Court has em- phasized is light. So we decline the invitation to impose a rigid rule of artificial completeness upon ALJ orders of deci- sion. What the ALJ produced here was more than sufficient and supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. I A In 2006 Brenda Warnell received a disc-removal and fu- sion surgery in her upper spine. Twelve years later, she sought treatment from a pain-management specialist, report- ing severe discomfort in her head, neck, and lower back. From 2018 to 2021, Warnell met regularly with physicians who monitored her symptoms and prescribed pain-relief medica- tions. No. 23-1632 3

Warnell’s medical record is mixed regarding the severity of her condition. An MRI from 2018 revealed bone spurs in her upper spine that pinched local nerves. But the same MRI showed no significant vertebrae narrowing, a generally “[u]nremarkable” spinal cord, and “[n]o acute abnormality” in the bones. A 2019 CT scan likewise indicated “[n]o acute osseous findings,” “[n]o destructive changes,” and no “adja- cent inflammation.” Results from physical examinations were likewise mixed. On at least three occasions, Warnell could not raise her leg from a sitting position without pain. She also expressed ten- derness in her neck, pain while performing physical-therapy exercises, and consistent throbbing in her head and back. Phy- sicians assessed Warnell with chronic pain syndrome and chronic migraines. At the same time, however, Warnell performed well on several tests designed to measure her movement capabilities. She exhibited normal movement, muscle strength, stamina, range of neck and hip motion, and reflexes. She also success- fully completed walking exercises. And at least twice she raised her leg while seated without pain, contradicting earlier results.