Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02528/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02528-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Argued January 27, 2015 

Decided February 6, 2015 

Before 

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge 

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 14-2528 

RYAN LAZIER, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. 

No. 11 C 3155 

Joan Humphrey Lefkow, 

Judge.

O R D E R 

Ryan Lazier applied for disability-insurance benefits and supplemental-security 

income based on his bipolar disorder, which had been complicated by his history of 

substance abuse. An administrative law judge found that Lazier’s impairments met the 

Social Security Administration’s disability listings for both affective and substanceaddiction disorders. After assessing whether Lazier was disabled when not using drugs, 

see 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(C); 20 C.F.R. § 416.935, the ALJ determined that he was not and 

denied the claim. The district court upheld the agency’s decision. On appeal Lazier 

challenges the ALJ’s findings concerning his credibility and the weight accorded his 

treating psychiatrist’s opinion. Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, 

we affirm. 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

Case: 14-2528 Document: 26 Filed: 02/06/2015 Pages: 5
No. 14-2528 Page 2 

 Lazier applied for benefits at the age of 44, claiming that his bipolar disorder 

rendered him unable to work. He had worked for the last 13 years building crates and 

packing shipments but lost that job in 2004 because of a reduction in force. (He told his 

doctors, however, that he was fired for absenteeism related to substance abuse.) Soon 

after he lost his job, Lazier experienced paranoid delusions and suicidal thoughts and 

was hospitalized. He felt depressed, he told the doctors, and said he had binged on 

cocaine for 12 straight hours before his family brought him to the emergency room. He 

was diagnosed with cocaine abuse and bipolar disorder, an affective disorder 

characterized by alternating manic, hypomanic, or mixed episodes with major 

depressive episodes. See STEDMAN’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY 568 (28th ed. 2006). He was 

treated with antipsychotic medication and began seeing a psychiatrist, Dr. Paragini 

Chandarana. He also entered a drug-treatment program, but his participation in the 

program was short-lived. He was expelled after only three months when he tested 

positive for cocaine. During this time he was also jailed for a domestic-violence incident. 

 Lazier continued to see Dr. Chandarana on a monthly basis over the next four 

years. Her treatment notes reflect that Lazier’s condition eventually stabilized: he stayed 

sober and clean, took his medication, looked for a part-time job, retained “clear” thought 

processes and average intelligence despite a low attention span, and attended Alcoholics 

Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings about three times a week. The doctor 

noted that the medication stabilized Lazier’s bipolar symptoms and that Lazier could 

“remember and focus well.” Dr. Chandarana continued to prescribe antipsychotic and 

antidepressant medication, which prevented paranoid and suicidal thoughts and 

produced no side effects. 

Dr. Chandarana also recorded observations of Lazier’s daily life. She noted that 

he performed “40-45 hrs/week volunteer service,” though she did not elaborate on what 

he did or the number of weeks he volunteered. (At oral argument Lazier’s attorney 

stated that Lazier performed custodial work but took as many breaks as he needed.) 

Lazier lived with his parents, helped them with household chores, and cared for his ill 

mother. In his spare time, he repaired cars and read. To supplement his income, he 

rented out a house that he owned. Lazier reported having no social life outside of the 

meetings for Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. 

 In connection with his application for benefits, Lazier underwent various mental 

evaluations in 2007 and 2008. Dr. Chandarana filled out a form evaluating Lazier’s 

ability to work in light of his mental impairments. She characterized him as having a fair 

ability to remember simple instructions, interact with others, and ask for help, but a poor 

ability to maintain concentration, make simple decisions, accept instructions and 

criticism, and complete a normal workweek. Dr. John Brauer, a consulting psychologist 

Case: 14-2528 Document: 26 Filed: 02/06/2015 Pages: 5
No. 14-2528 Page 3 

who examined Lazier, confirmed symptoms consistent with bipolar disorder and a 

“somewhat impaired” ability to concentrate, but opined that he was stable and his 

general knowledge and judgment remained “grossly intact.” A state-agency consultant 

filled out a form entitled “psychiatric review technique,” assessed Lazier’s basic 

cognitive functioning as “adequate with notable limitations in attention and 

concentration,” and concluded that he “could concentrate and persist adequately on 

tasks within an organized setting.” The same form was also completed by another 

state-agency psychologist who reported based on a review of the file that Lazier had 

“intact cognition/memory and thought processes for carrying out a wide variety of 

multiple step tasks.” 

At his hearing before an ALJ in mid-2009, Lazier testified about the severity of his 

limitations when he was sober and taking medication. The medication “help[ed him] 

function daily,” Lazier said, but he experienced racing thoughts and “up and down 

mood swings” throughout the day during which he could not concentrate. The 

depression made him tired, he added, so he took a three-hour nap every day. He 

estimated that he could work 20 hours each week. As for his substance-abuse history, he 

stated that he relapsed in July 2008 when he stopped taking his antipsychotic 

medication, but he reentered the drug-treatment program and since has stayed sober. 

A vocational expert testified that a hypothetical claimant of Lazier’s age with 

bipolar disorder whose ability to concentrate for extended periods was moderately 

limited would not be able to perform his past work as a packer—which required 

significant concentration—but could work in a less mentally demanding job like a 

laundry worker, store laborer, or dish washer. But the VE clarified that a claimant would 

not be employable in those jobs if he had the limitations noted in Dr. Chandarana’s 

assessment—a poor ability to maintain concentration, make simple decisions, accept 

instructions and criticism, and complete a normal workweek. 

The ALJ submitted interrogatories to two state-agency consultants who disagreed 

with Dr. Chandarana’s assessment and concurred with the other consultants that Lazier 

was stable and could perform simple tasks. First, psychologist Ellen Rozenfeld 

concluded based on her review of the file that Lazier’s bipolar disorder was “stable on 

medication” and “nonsevere.” She noted “no limitations” in his daily activities with 

“mild limitations” in social functioning and maintaining concentration. Dr. Rozenfeld 

gave “little weight” to Dr. Chandarana’s assessment of Lazier’s limitations because “the 

suggested limitations are not supported by the underlying progress notes and the 

underlying progress notes are consistent with the narrative of [Dr. Brauer] suggesting 

that [Lazier] was stable.” The second consultant, David Biscardi, also reviewed Lazier’s 

file and reported that absent substance abuse, Lazier “retain[ed] the capacity to 

Case: 14-2528 Document: 26 Filed: 02/06/2015 Pages: 5
No. 14-2528 Page 4 

understand, remember, carry out and sustain performance of simple routine tasks, 

complete a normal workday, interact with co-workers/supervisors and adapt to 

changes/stressors associated with simple routine competitive work activities.” 

 The ALJ applied the five-step evaluation process and denied Lazier’s application 

for benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The ALJ found that Lazier had not engaged in 

gainful employment since the alleged onset date (step 1); that his bipolar and 

substance-abuse disorders were severe impairments (step 2); and that his impairments 

met Listings 12.04 (affective disorders) and 12.09 (substance-addiction disorders), see id.

§ 404, Subpart P, App. 1 (step 3). Because of Lazier’s substance addiction, the ALJ next 

assessed whether Lazier was disabled when he did not use drugs, see id. § 416.935, and 

determined that he was not. The ALJ found that Lazier could not perform his past 

relevant work as a packer, but had the residual functional capacity to perform unskilled 

labor (step 4), and that suitable jobs were available, including work as a laundry worker, 

store laborer, and dish washer (step 5). 

In assessing Lazier’s RFC, the ALJ determined that Lazier was not fully credible 

because he had coped with bipolar disorder during his previous employment (using 

substances to self-medicate) but applied for disability benefits only after his diagnosis. 

The ALJ discredited Lazier’s testimony that he could work only 20 hours in a week 

because he had done 40 hours of community service in a week while on probation. 

Finally, the ALJ gave “little probative value” to Dr. Chandarana’s restrictive assessment 

of Lazier’s ability to work because it was inconsistent with the progress reported in her 

treatment notes. The ALJ denied the claim, and the Appeals Council denied review. 

Lazier sought review in federal court, and the district court upheld the agency’s 

decision. The court concluded that the ALJ properly discredited Lazier based on his 

inconsistent testimony and gave specific reasons supported by the record to question 

Dr. Chandarana’s assessment. 

On appeal Lazier challenges the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination and 

asserts that the ALJ used meaningless boilerplate when he wrote that Lazier’s 

“statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of such symptoms 

are not credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the [RFC] assessment.” 

The use of boilerplate does not necessarily undercut the ALJ’s decision if the ALJ 

otherwise provides specific and legitimate reasons for discrediting the claimant’s 

testimony. See Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 367–68 (7th Cir. 2013); Filus v. Astrue, 

694 F.3d 863, 868 (7th Cir. 2012). Here the ALJ legitimately discredited Lazier’s testimony 

about his limitations—his difficulty concentrating and his inability to work 

full-time—because it was inconsistent with the opinions of the five consulting doctors 

Case: 14-2528 Document: 26 Filed: 02/06/2015 Pages: 5
No. 14-2528 Page 5 

who agreed that he could perform unskilled tasks. Moreover, Lazier gave inconsistent 

reasons for why he lost his packing job. He told the ALJ that the company had 

undergone a reduction in force, but he told his doctors that he was fired for absenteeism 

related to substance abuse. The ALJ also reasonably questioned the timing of Lazier’s 

application for benefits: he applied only after his diagnosis of bipolar disorder, despite 

having been able to work full-time for 13 years in a position that required concentration.1

Lazier next contends that the ALJ improperly discredited his treating 

psychiatrist’s assessment. A treating physician’s assessment is entitled to controlling 

weight if supported by objective medical evidence and other substantial evidence in the 

record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013), but it 

also may be discounted if internally inconsistent or inconsistent with a consultant’s 

opinion, see Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842 (7th Cir. 2007). The ALJ noted that 

Dr. Chandarana’s restrictive assessment was at odds with the opinions of five consulting 

doctors (including Dr. Brauer, who personally examined Lazier), all of whom agreed 

that Lazier retained the mental capacity to perform at least unskilled work. Lazier also 

protests that the ALJ referred to the state-agency consultants as “examiners” even 

though only one—Dr. Brauer—actually examined him. The ALJ’s use of the word 

“examiner” to describe the state-agency consultants does not suggest that he 

misunderstood their role. Their opinions deserved significant weight, the ALJ explained, 

because they were consistent with the record, not because they were based on personal 

examinations. 

AFFIRMED. 

 

1 Lazier also suggests that the ALJ harbored the misimpression that he continued 

to experience substance abuse throughout the time in question. Lazier takes issue with 

several statements in the decision in which the ALJ prefaced his findings with the 

qualification “if the claimant stopped the substance abuse.” Lazier misapprehends the 

framework of the ALJ’s analysis. A claimant may not receive benefits if substance abuse 

materially contributes to a disabling condition. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(C). The ALJ was 

explaining that he credited the evidence in the record that Lazier had remained clean 

and sober (except for a short relapse in July 2008).

Case: 14-2528 Document: 26 Filed: 02/06/2015 Pages: 5