## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2487 S HIRLEY S CO TT, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. M ICHAEL J. A S T RUE, Com m i ssi onero fS oci alS ecuri ty, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 C5882

— Sid ney I . Schenkier , Magis trate Judge .
A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 9, 2010

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 1, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, T INDER, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. Shi rl ey Sco tt appli ed f ordi sabi l i ty i nsurance benefi ts and supp l em ental secur i ty i ncom e, cl a i mi n g th a t s h e i s d i s ab l e d b y b i p o l a r d i s o r d e r a nd num er ous physi cali m pai rm ents. The S oci alS ecuri ty Ad mi n i s t r a t i o n ( “ S S A” ) d e n i e d h e r c l a i m, an d a m ag ist ra te j u d ge , pr es id in g b y c on se n t, u p h eld th e d ec isi o n. Sco tt conte nd s o n appeal thatthe A dm i ni str ati ve Law J ud ge ( “A LJ”) wrongl y di sco unted the o pini on o f2 N o. 10

- 2487 h er tre at in g p sy c h iat ris t a n d d isc r ed ite d h er ow n te st im ony , an d th at th ese m istakes cau sed th e A L J t o ov ers t a t e h e r r e s i d u a l fu n c t i o n a l c a p a c i t y ( “ R F C ” )
. We vacat e the m agi str ate j ud ge’ s decision and re m and w i th i nstr uction s that the cas e be r etur ned to the S SA fo r add i ti onalpro ceedi ngs.

I . B a c kg r o und Sco tt, wh o i s no w 56 ye ar s o l d, su ffer s fro m m ental i m pai rm ents as w el l a s b ac k and knee pai n. H erphysi cal probl em s to ok cente r sta ge beginning on N ew Year ’ s Eve i n 200 0, wh en she tr i pp ed on so m e s tai rs and l anded o n her back

. Fo r te n m onths after w ar d she e nd ured p er sis te n t b ac k p ain th at ev en tu ally m ad e itim p os sib le f orh er t o c onti nue perf or m i ng the duti es ofherj ob as a nur singho m e as si st an t, whi chr equi r ed th ats he l i ft an d tr anspor t e l derl y r esi den ts
. S o Sco tt gave up her j ob, m ove d i n w i th herdaughter, a n d fi l ed an appl i cati on f ordi sa b i l i ty benefi ts that w as denie d i n Feb ruar y 2 005. T h en in A u gu st 20 05 h er k n e e s g av e o u t, an d sh e fe ll dow n a s eco nd se t o fst ai rs and furthe r inj ured herbac k. She w ent t o the e m er gen c y r oo m , but x-r ays co nfi rm ed th at no t h in g w as broken and no im m ed iate surgery w as necess ar y. A fter t h at i nci dent she re appli ed f or di sabi l i tyb en efi ts , a nd thi s s ec o nd a ppl i ca ti o n i s th e one bef or e us. I n re sponse to Sco tt’ s r enewed appli cati on , a sta teage ncy inter ni st, Dr. N or m a Vi l l anue va , exam i ned Sco tt i n D ec em ber20 05. Duri ng the br i ef, hal f

- hour appoint

m ent, S cott tol d the doct orthatshe car ri es a ca ne f orN o. 10

- 2487 3 bal ance b ecause she has b ad k nees, and she com pla i ned of b ack pai n, ar thri ti s, depres si on, and vi si on probl em s. Sco tt sai d that he r b ac k had bo ther ed hersince 20 01 and th at her doctorhad pres cribed a hi gh dosa ge of ibuprofen , w hi ch often i s ineffectual

. Dr. Vi l l anueva d iagnose d Sc ott w ith osteop orosis, arthritis, and hyp erten si on but concl ud ed that her m uscul osk el eta l heal th was “ norm al

. ” I n s uppo r t o fthi s l as t co nc l us i o n, D r. V illan u ev a w r o t e , “ [Sc ot t] u se s a ca n e b u t c an w alk nor m al l y 5 0 feetwh en asked to do s o here i n the offi ce, wi tho uth e r c a ne . . . . [ R] a ng e o fmo t i o n i s ful l

. ” T he r ep ort s ay s no th i ngabo utS co tt ’ s ab i l i tyt o l i ft o r c ar ry heavyo bj ects
. A l though thi s i s the m edi calev al uati on upo n whi chthe ALJ ul ti m at ely r el i ed i n a ss es si ng Scott’s p hy sical l im itation s, he r m ed ical record s are re ple te w ith in sta nces i n w hi ch she com pla i ned to o th e r d o c t o r s ab o u tb a c ka n d kn e e p a i n a n d s a i d t he c a n e was ne c e s s a r y f o r b a l a n c e . S c a n s a n d X

- r a y s , h o weve r, di d show thatS cot t’ s knees w er e no rm aland that she s uffer ed fro m o nl y m i ni m ald ege nera ti on in herspi ne. The st ate ag ency al so evaluated S cot t’ s m entalheal th in D ecem ber 2005

. S c ott com p lai ne d to Dr. Robert Pres cot t, a psychol ogi st, abo ut poorm em or y, bo uts o f cry i ng, di si nter esti n acti vi ti es, and audit or y hal l uci nati ons. Dr. Pres cot t obser ved thatS cot t di spl aye d a “fl at” affe c t b u t w as orie n te d to tim e a n d p lac e a n d w as ab le to car e forher sel f; he c oncl ud ed th at S cot t was depres sed an d s uffer ed f r o m s o m e co g ni ti ve l i m i ta ti o ns . A di ffer en t state -agenc y ps y ch ologi st th en review ed Dr. Prescot t’s r epo r t an d c o nc l ude d tha t S co ttf ac ed m i l d l i m i ta ti o ns i n h erabi l i ti es t o pe r f o r m da i l y l i fe ac ti vi ti es a nd mai n-4 N o. 10

- 2487 ta inco n c en tr at ion, pe rs ist en c e, an d p ac e, bu t w as ab le to func ti o n no r m al l y i n so ci al se tt i ng s an d ha d not expe r i e nc e d a nye pi s o de s o fde c o mpe ns a t i o n. A s t a te age ncy m edi calco nsul tant agr eed with thi s a sse ssm ent. I n A pri l 2 00 6, S cot t had a Com prehensi ve M ental H ea lth A ss es sm en t. Sh e t old th e e x am in er th at sh e is p erp etua l l y a nxi o us a nd ha s tr o ubl e sl ee pi ng, i n pa rt because of t h e v oi ces she he ar s. The exam i ner note d thatS c o t th a d d i ffi c ul t y r e c a l l i ngda t e s , b uth e r j ud gm ent was i ntact. The as ses sm ent c oncl u d ed that S cot t wa s d e p r e s s e d b u tr u l e d o u tmaj o r d e p r e s s i o n, r e c o mm en di ngthe r apya nd a ps y ch i at r i c ev al ua ti o n. I n J une 20 06, S co ttb eg anthe r apywi thDr
. Chr i st i ne Tate, a psychi atr i st, o n a ne ar - m onthl y b asi s. In hertrea tm ent no tes , Dr. Tate docum ented S cot t’s co m pla i nts that she cri ed dai l y a nd suffer ed fre quent ni ghtm ar es, par an o i a, a nd pe r i o ds o fi ns o m ni a, s o m et i m es l as ting m or e than two days. Dr. Tate al so obser ve d that S cot t w as guar ded , spok e qui etl y a nd s lowly, had poor re cal l and conce ntra ti on, and w as easi l y di str acte d. Tate diagnose d Sco tt w i th bi pol ardi sor der a nd pre scr ibed A bi l i fy a nd Zol oft, bo th o fw h ich ar e use d to tr eat bi polar di sor der a nd depres si on. In M ay 2007, S cot t com pla i ned ofhand tr em or s ( a com m on si de effect of her m edi cati ons) , so Dr. Tate pre scr ibed a thi rd drug, Cogentin, to r educe t h e trem or s a nd o rder ed a neur ologi cal cons ultation t o r u le out othe r cau ses. I t ap p ears fro m th e re c or d th at th e t re m or s e as ed w ith th e a d d iti onalm edic at ion, and Sco tt neverwent f orthe neuro l o g i ca l c o ns ul ta ti o n.N o. 10

- 2487 5 D r. Tat e also com p leted a qu estionn aire about Scott’s m en ta l i m pai r m en ts
. Aft er m o r e th an a y ea r o fw o r k i ng wi th S c o t t, the p s y c hi a t r i s tr e po r t e d tha tS c o t t ’ s s y mptom s incl ud ed tea rfulne ss, audit or y hal l uci nati ons, para noi a, and diffi cul ty concent ra ti ng, and she re m ar ked that Sco tt had lo n g been a “ quie t s uffer ero funtre ate d chronic m en ta l i l l ne ss ” ev entho ug h h erment als ta tu s w as “w i thin n or m all i m i ts. ” Dr. Tate o pined thatS cot t w oul d m i ss w or k at l eas t thre e ti m es a m onth and that sh e ha d no abil ity, or at best a “fair” abili t y , t o perform ligh t w or k. D r. T at e con c lu d ed th at Sc ot t is sligh tly lim ite d in d aily fu n c tio n in g a n d m ar ke d l y lim ite d in soc i alfuncti oni ng; thatshe f re quentl y e xperi ences defi ci en ci es i n c o nc en tr at i o n, pe r si st en ce , o r pa ce ; a nd that she s uffer s fro m r epeate d epis odes ofdeter iora tion an d de co m pen sa ti o n. At he r he ar i ngb efo r e th e AL J, S co ttde sc r ibed the i m pai rm ents she thought would interfer e with her abi l i t y t o wo r k

. S he e xp l a i ne d tha th e r b i po l a r di s o r der m ade herte ar ful and dep re sse d , c aused herto hear i mag i na r y v o i c e s , h i nd e r e d h e r c o nc e nt r a t i o n, a nd ma de her feelpara noi d. She re m ar ked t h at, bec ause ofthes e sy m p to m s, sh e c ou ld “h ar d ly ke ep [h er se lf] tog et h e r.” A s e xam ple s o fhow the di sor der i n te rfe re s with her li fe, Scott said that she often m isses her bu s stop , fears be i ngf o l l o wed, a nd ha s tr o ubl e sl eepi ng . Re g ar di ng her physi call i m i tat i ons, S cot t t ol d the AL J that, since he r i nitial stairw ay fal l, she h as ex p erience d sharp l ow erbac k p ain th atl as ts da y s ata t i m e an d tha t i s no t co ntr ol l ed by presc ri pti on- str ength ibuprofen. S he al so re peated that herknee s t end to gi ve o u t, so she car ri es6 N o. 10

- 2487

a ca ne. S cot t conceded that her presc ri pti on f oro ste opor osi s hel ped her knees but sa i d that s he had st opped ta k i ngthe medi catio n b ec au se s he c o ul d no t g o t o the hospi talto ge t the pre scr i ption r efi l l ed. ( She re fi l l ed h er otherpre scr i pti ons at a l oca l pharm acy. ) Final l y, S co tte xpl ained tha t 2 o r 3 t i m es a wee khe r r i g htha nd shake s forabo ut 30 m i nutes, m aking i t har d fo r her to h old th in gs , an d th at arm p ain m a k e s itim p os sib le f orherto l i ft m or e than a g al l on o fm i l k. S co tta l so t es ti fi ed ab o uthe r da i l y r o ut i ne . Sh e t old th e AL J tha t sh e i s a ble t o he l p he r da ug ht erwi thc o o k i ng and som e cl eani ng, but sh e ca nnot be nd to m op or car rygr oce ri es. Duri ng the day Sc ot t w atches TV, ta l ks o n the pho ne , a nd r ea ds, b ut som et i m es s he c anno t co nce nt r at e o n the se a ctivi ti es . S co ttt o l d the ALJ tha t sh e can st and orsi t for30 m i nutes a t a ti m e, walk2 bl ock s w i thou t stopp i ng, and cl i m b st ai rs i fshe hol ds onto a r ai l i ng o r uses her cane. A psycho l ogi st, Dr. El l en Roze nfe l d, w as prese nt f or Sco tt’ s t est i m ony and com m ented o n herm entalheal th b as ed o n herte sti m ony and an exam i nati on o fthe re co r d. Dr
. Ro ze nfel d rem ar k ed th ats he ha d s ee n n o ev i d e n c e i n th e me d i c a l r e c o r d o f ma n i c e p i s o d e s a nd thus wond er ed how Dr. Tate had ar ri ved at her d iag n os is of b ip ola r d iso rd er . A lth ou gh D r . Ro ze n feld did n ot r ule o ut the diagnosi s, she opi ned that Sco tt had a sou nd abili ty to rem em ber, reason , an d p e r form basi c ca l cul ati ons; thatshe coul d engag e in a fullr ange of daily activities; and that the record did not su p p ort a con clusion th at Scott w ou ld m iss th ree d ays of w orkN o. 10

- 2487 7

a m onth. Dr. Roze nfe l d als o surm i sed thatS cot t di strus te d o th er s but w as no t par an o i d, a nd tha t th e voi ces she he ar d m i ght s i m ply b e a by product o f f al l i ng as l eep since S cot t usuall y hea rd the m atni ght. Dr. Roze nfe l d concl ud ed that a di agno si s o fm aj ordep re ss ion w as ap p ro p ria te an d op in ed th at Sc o t t co u ld follo w sh or t, sim p l e in st ru c tio n s b u t w as m od er at ely li m ited in social fun ctioning and i n con ce n tration, pers i s t e nc e , a nd pac e . S he a l s o o pi ne d tha tS c o t th a d a m ar ked l i m i tat i on in her abi l i ty to perf or m com ple x tas ks. The A LJ then ask ed a vo c atio nal exper t ( “VE”) what j ob s S cot t co uld do i fshe can l i ft, push, o r pu ll 10 p ou nd s f r eque nt l y a nd 2 0 po unds o cc as i o na l l y ; s ta nd or w alk f or6 hours; and occ asi onal l y c l i m b, bal ance, st o o p, kne el, cr o uch, a nd c r awl

. The ALJ i ns truct ed th e V E to ex c lu d e jobs th at inv olv e c o m p l i c at ed ta sk s, a r api d p ac e, o r fr eque nti nt er ac ti o n wi tho th er s. The VE r esponded that Sco tt coul d not re turn t o her past w ork b u t c oul d perf or m l i ght workas a hote l cl eaner orpark i ng- l ot att endant. The A LJ then asked t h e VE to c on s i d e r t h e a d d ed lim ita tio n th at Sc ot t m u st be ab le to a l te r na te b etwee n s ta ndi nga nd s i tt i ng . The VE c o ncl ud ed that, with that l im i tat i on, S cot t would be l i m i ted to j obs as a parking- l ot att endant, o fw h i ch he e sti m ate d ther e a re 2, 000 i n the re gi onaleco nom y. In both ca ses , the VE added , S cot t wo u ld h ave to concent ra te f orat l eas t 8 5% o fthe ti m e. The A LJ e valua te d S cot t’ s cl ai m under the r equi re d fiv e - s t ep an aly sis , s ee 20 C.F

. R. §§ 40 4. 1520 , 41 6. 920, and con c l ud ed that ( 1) S cot t had notworke d since8 N o. 10

- 2487 October20 01; ( 2) herdep re ss i on, hyper tensi on, o ste op or o si s, a nd mi ni m alde g en er at i o n o fhe r s pi ne c o nsti tute severe im pai rm ents but the hand tr em or s do not; ( 3) thes e i m pai rm ents do not coll ecti vel y m eeto r equal a li sted im p airm en t; (4) Scott h as th e RFC to perform l i ght work; and (5) b as ed on thi s RFC she cannot perf or m herpre vi ous j ob but ca n d o light w or k a s a ho t e l c l e a ne r a nd thu s i s n o tdi s ab l e d. The A LJ r ej ecte d D r. T ate’ s di agno si s o fbi pol ar d isorder, and i ns tead conc lud ed that D r . Roz en fel d ’s di agno si s of d ep r es si o n was mor e co ns i st en t wi ththe r ec o r d. The AL J r efus ed to cr edi t Dr
. Ta te o n the gr o und that ther e i s no “obj ecti ve evi dence to su p p or t her opi ni on that [ Sco tt] wou ld be absent m or e than 3 t i m es a m onth” and because Dr. Tate ’ s no tes r efl ect a pos i ti ve r es po ns e to medi ca ti on an d the r apy, unde r m i ni ngthe concl usi on that S cot t i s l i m i ted i n herabi l i ty to w or k. The ALJ a l so de ni ed benefi ts , i n pa r t, b ec au se s he d iscred ited Scot t’s testim ony on “th e inten sity, persi st en ce a nd l i m i tinge ffect s” o fhe r s y m pto m s. The A L J fo und thatS cot t had o ver sta ted herbac k a nd knee pai n beca use s he can cl i m b s ta irs and w al k tw o bl ock s, a n d b e c a u s e X

- r a y s o f h e r k n e e s we r e n o r ma l a nd fi l ms o fh e r b a c ks ho w ed onl y mi ni malde g e ne r a t i o n. T he ALJ fu rt h er d ou b te d th at th e v oic es Sc o t t w as h ea rin g w ou ld k eep h er fr o m wor k i ngb ec au se s he “ he ar d v o i ce s i n the d aytim e only onc e.” The A L J also cha racterized Scott’s te st i m o ny a s i nc o ns i st en t be ca us e sh e ha d s ai d tha t sh e sto pp ed tak i ng o ne m edi cin e w hen she coul d not t ra vel to getthe presc ri pt i on fi l l ed, ye t s he tr avel ed to se eN o. 10

- 2487 9 Dr. Tate and go t herpre scr i pti ons fi l l ed at a l oca l drugsto re . T he A LJ a l so concl ud ed that, bec ause Sco tt re cal l ed the l oca ti on o fthatd ru gs tore, herm em or y i s be tte r th ans he l et s o n.

I I . Discussi on S co ttc ha l l en g es thr ee a spe ct s o fthe ALJ ’ s decision, w hi ch w e r evi ew as the fi nal word fro m the Com m i ss i o n e r b e c a u s e th e Ap p e a l s C o u n c i l decl i n e d r e v i e w. See G e tch v. A strue, 53 9 F
. 3d 473, 48 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. S cot t f aul ts the AL J f orcr edi ti ng Dr. R oz en fel d i nstea d of Dr. Tate r ega rdi ng herm entalim pai rm ents, ar gues that th e ALJ ’ s c r e dib i l i t y fi nd i ngi s u ns up po r t e d, a nd di spu tes the A LJ’ s r esul ti ng dete rm in at i on that herRFC allo w s l i gh t w or k. W e c on fin e o u r re vie w to th e ra tio n ale offered by the A L J, Ste e l e v. B a rnh a rt, 29 0 F
. 3d 936, 94 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( ci ti ng SEC v. Che ne ry Corp. , 31 8 U.S

. 80 , 93

- 9 5 ( 1 9 4 3 ) ) , a n d e v a l u a t e w h e th e r th a td e c i s i o n i s s up po r te d b y s ubs ta nt i ale vi den ce w itho utde fer r i ngt o the d ist ric t c ou rt, O ’ Connor

- Spi nner v . As t r ue, 62 7 F
. 3d 614, 61 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0)
. S ubs ta nt ial ev i den ce i s “s uchr el ev an t evi dence as a re aso nabl e m i nd m igh t accept as adequate to s up porta concl usi on. ” Ski nne rv. As t r ue, 47 8 F
. 3d 836, 84 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( qu oting R ich a rdso n v . P erales , 402 U
. S. 389, 401 (1971 ))
. As t o S c o t t ’ s fi r s t a r g u me n t, we a g r e e th a t t he ALJ er r o ne o us l y c r edi te d Dr

. Ro ze nfel d’ s opi ni o n o ve r the vi ew s o fDr. Tate i n eva l uati ng herm entali m pai rm ents. A trea tingdo ct o r ’ s o pi ni o n r ec ei ve s co nt r o l l i ngwei g ht i fi t i s “well

- su ppo r te d” an d “ no t i nc o ns i st en t wi ththe10 N o. 10

- 2487

o th ers ubs ta nt i ale vi den ce” i n the r ec o r d. 2 0 C. F
. R. § 4 04 .15 27 (d )(2) ; s e ePunzi o v. As t r ue, 630 F. 3d 704, 710 ( 7th C ir. 20 11 ); Cam pb e l l v. As t r ue, 6 2 7 F .3 d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 20 10 )
. An ALJ m us t o ffer“ g o o d r ea sons” f o r di sc o unt i ng th e o pi ni o n o fa t r ea tingphy si ci an . M ar t i nez v. As t r ue, 63 0 F.3 d 6 93 , 698 (7t h C ir. 20 11 ); C am pbel l , 627 F. 3d at 306. H ere, th e reason s the A L J g a v e f or discou nt ing D r. Tat e’s ass ess m ent do not m eetthi s s tandard. The A LJ fi rs t re lied on Dr. Roze nfe l d’s concl usi on that the m edi cal r ec o r d c o nt ains no e vi den ce o fmani c epi so des a nd thus ca nno t su ppo r t a di agno si s ofb i po l ardi so r der, whi ch, b y d efin itio n, in c lu d es b ot h m an ic an d d ep re ss iv e e p is o de s . Bu tthe r eco r d do es c on ta inev id en c e t h at co u ld b e s ym p to m at ic o f m an ic b eh av ior. D r. T at e re p ea te d ly note d that S cot t s om eti m es sta ys aw ake f ordays at a ti m e, ha s par an o i d i dea ti o ns , i s ea si l y di st r ac ted, a nd e x p e r i e n c e s d i ffi c ul t y c o n c e n t r a t i n g . T h e s e s y mp t o ms ar e c on sis te n t w ith m an ic e p iso d es , se e A m . Psychiatri c A ss’n, D iagn o st i c a n d S ta tistica l M a nu a l of M enta l D iso rders 357- 62 ( 4th e d. 2000 ), a nd i t i s pos sibl e that Dr. Tate consi dered the m as such in dia gnos i ng S cot t with bipolar d isorder. T h e A L J als o fou n d D r. T at e’s as se ss m en t in te rn ally i nconsi ste nt be cause, o n the one h and, she o pined that Sc ott i s m ar kedl y l i m i ted i n herabi l i ty to w or k a nd is l i kel y t o m i ss thre e days o f w or k per m onth whil e, o n the o therhand, she al so sta ted thatS c ott had r esponded w el l to tr eat m ent. But the A LJ was t oo qui ck to re ad i nconsi ste ncy into these st ate m en ts. There can be a gr eatdi sta nce be tw een a pati ent who responds to tr eat
m en t and on e w ho i s ab l e to e nt erthe wor k f o r ce , a ndN o. 10

- 2487 11 that d ifference i s bo rne out i n Dr. Tate ’ s t re atm ent no tes
. Those no tes sho w t hat a l though S cot t had i m prove d w ith tre at m en t, sh e n ev er th ele ss co n tin u ed to freq u en tly e xp e r i e nc e b o ut s o fc r y i nga nd fe e l i ng s o fp a ra noi a. The A LJ w as not perm i tte d to “cher ry - pick ” fro m tho se m ix ed res u l t s t o s u p p or t a d en ial of b en efit s. D e nt on v. Ast r ue, 596 F.3d 41 9, 4 2 5 ( 7t h C ir. 20 10 ); See M yles v. As t r ue, 58 2 F.3d 6 72 , 67 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. M or eove r, the A LJ’ s anal ysi s r eve al s a n al l

- too
- com m on m i sund er sta nd i ng o fm entali l l ness. The ve rynatur e o f bi pol ardi sor der i s that peo ple with the disease ex per i en ce fl uctua ti o ns i n the i r s y m ptom s, s o a ny si ngl e no tat i on that a pati ent i s feel i ng be tte r orhas had a “ goo d day” d oe s not i m plythatthe condi ti on has b ee n tre at ed

. SeePu nzio , 63 0 F.3 d a t 7 1 0; Lars on v. As t r ue, 61 5 F .3d 74 4, 75 1 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); Ba u e rv . A s t r ue, 5 32 F.3d 606 , 609 (7th C ir. 2008). And ev eni fthe r e ha d b ee n s o und r ea so ns f o r r efusin g to g i ve Dr
. Ta te ’ s ass es smentc o nt r o l l i ngwei g ht, the AL J s ti l l woul d ha ve b ee n req ui r ed to de te r m i ne w h at va lu e t h e a ss es s m en t d id m er it. See 20 C. F
. R. § 4 04 .15 27 (d )(2) ; Lars on , 6 1 5 F
. 3 d a t7 51. “I fa n ALJ do es no t g i ve a t r ea tingp hy sic i an ’ s o pi ni o n c o nt r o l l i ng wei g ht, the r egul at i o ns r equi r e th e A L J to co ns i derthe l e ng th, n a ture , a nd e xt e nto fthe t r e a t men tr e l a t i o ns hi p, f r eque nc y o fe xa m i nati o n, the phy si ci an ’ s spe ci al ty, the ty pes o ft es ts pe r f o r m ed, a nd the c o ns i st en cya nd supp or tabi l i ty ofthe physi ci an’ s o pini on. ” M os s v. As t r ue, 55 5 F
. 3d 55 6, 5 61 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( ci ting2 0 C. F
. R. § 40 4. 15 27 ( d) (2 ) )
. Her e, many o fthe se c o ns i der at i o ns f avo r cre dit i ng Dr. Tate ’ s a sse ssm ent: Dr. Tate is a psy-12 N o. 10

- 2487 ch i at r i st( no t a psy ch o l o g i st) , s he s aw S co tto n a mon thl y b a s i s , a nd the t r e a t men tr e l a t i o ns hi p l ast ed f oro vera yea r. I t i s no t a pp ar ent that the A LJ c onsi dered any o fthes e f actors
. Based o n thes e s hor tco m i ngs, w e c o n c lud e tha t the A L J’ s con side ration of Dr. T ate’s e v a l ua t i o n i s u ns a t i s f a c t o r y a nd r e qu i r e s r e man d. T he sam e is tru e of th e A L J’ s ass e s s m e nt of Scott’s physi c al i m pai rm ents. The A LJ a ske d the VE to consi der w hat j obs would be avai l abl e t o Sc ot t if s he can sta nd f or 6 h o u r s i n a r e g u l a r d a y a n d l i ft 1 0 t o 2 0 p o u n ds, b ut the AL J di d not i denti fy a ny m edi calev id en ce t o subst an ti ate he r b el i eftha t S co tti s ca pab l e o fmeet i ng th o se phy si ca l r equi r ement s. The A L J said th athe r c o ncl us i o n i s ba se d o n Dr
. Vi l l an ue va ’ s ex ami na ti o n, b ut nothi ng i n that re portsugg est s that S cot t can st and fo r 6 ho urs orl i ft up to 20 pound s. Dr. Vi l l anueva no ted th atS co tts ucc es sful l y wal k ed 50 fee t wi th o uta c an e w i thi n the c on fi nes o fhero ffi ce, but that bri efexcur si on ha r d ly d em ons trates an abil ity to stan d f or 6 hou rs (an d n eit h er d oe s Sc ot t’s te st im on y t h at sh e c ou ld w alk 2 blo c ks ). A d d itio n ally , th er e is n o e vid en c e in D r. Vill an ue va’s rep ort tha t s h e even tested Scott’s ab ilit y to lift h ea vy ob j ec ts , so th e A L J co u ld n otlegit imat e l y h a v e r e l i e d o n th a te x a mi n a t i o n t o c o n c l ud e tha tS c o t tcan oc c a s i o na l l y l i ft2 0 p o un ds

. T he ALJ ne ede d t o e xpl ain h o w she r eached he r c o nc l us i o ns ab ou t Sc ot t’s p h ys ica l ca p a b i l i tie s, se e B risc oe ex re l. Ta ylo r v. B a rnh a rt, 425 F.3d 345 , 352 (7th C ir. 2005); B a rrett v . B a r n ha rt, 355 F.3d 106 5, 1068 ( 7th Cir. 2004), but the pri m ar y pi ece ofev id ence that she r el i ed on do e s n o ts up po r tthe p r o po s i t i o ns f o r wh i c h i t is c i t e d.N o. 10

- 2487 13 W e t h er efo re m u st co n c lu d e t h a t t h e A L J faile d to bu ild th e r equi si te “ l o g i ca l b r i dge ” be twe enthe e vi den ce and her concl usi on. See Te r ry v . As t r ue, 58 0 F
. 3d 471, 47 5 (7th C ir. 2009). The Com m i ssi onerasse rts that, apar t fro m o ne st ate
m en t at the hearing t h a t Scott w as u na ble to l ift m ore th ano ne g al l o n o fmil k, the r e i s no e vi d en ce th ats he ha s a nyli mi t a t i o n o n he r l i ft i ngab i l i t y, a nd the ALJ was the r efo r e en ti tl ed to de te r m i ne her RF C wi th o ut re fer en c e t o a m or e-s u b st an tia l liftin g re st ric t i o n . It is tr ue thatS cot t be ar s the bur den ofpro du ci ng ev i dence ofheri m pai rm ents, see Ei ch s t adtv. As t r ue, 53 4 F
. 3d 663, 66 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) , b uts he di d pr o duce e vi den ce i n the f or m o fhero w n tes ti m ony as w el l as m edi calev i dence that tr em or s m ake i t di ffi cul t forherto use h er hands. I fthe A LJ found thi s e vi dence i nsufficie n t, i t was her re sponsibi l i ty to re cogni ze the ne ed f oraddit i onal m ed ica l ev alu at ion s. See G o lem biew ski v. B a rnh a rt, 32 2 F.3d 912 , 918 (7th C ir. 2003); Sm ith v. A pfel , 2 3 1 F
. 3 d 4 3 3, 437 (7th Cir. 2000). The se fl aws a r e en ou g h t o r equi r e us t o r emand th e case to the A gen cy for furt he r proce ed ings. W e the refore n ee d n ’t d ec id e w h et h er th e re as on s t h e A L J ga ve in su ppo r t o fhe r a dve r se c r edibi l i tyfi ndi ngr eg ar di ng Scott w ere so “p aten tly w rong” as to sep ara t ely r eq uire re m an d

. Sc haaf

v. A str ue, 602 F.3d 869 , 875 (7th C ir. 20 10 ); Si m i l a v. As t r ue, 573 F.3d 503 , 517 (7th C ir
. 2009). N o ne th el es s, we po i nto uts ev er alo fthe mos t se r i o us fl aws i n the ALJ ’ s cr edibi l i tya ss es sm en t so tha t th e SSA d oes not rep eat them on rem an d

. First is t h e A L J’s14 N o. 10

- 2487

su ggestion that Scott’s aud itory hall uc inations w on’t inte r fer e wi thhe r abi l i tyt o wor kb ec au se s he hears voi ces onl y a t ni ght. T h e A LJ di d not l i m i t S cot t t o d a y t i me w o r k( p a r k i ngl o t s o ft e n e mp l o y n i g h t
- t i me at te nda nt s) , a nd thi s r ea so ni ngf ai l s to a cc o unt f o r the re alitythathear i ng vo i ces at ni ght c oul d i nter fer e with Sco tt’ s abi l i ty to sl eep and thus herabi l i ty to functi on du ring the day. M or eov er, th er e m ust be a r e as on that Sc o t th e a r s v o i c e s , a s ubj e c ttha ts ho ul d b e e xp l or ed ra therthan used as a r eas on t o doubt hercr edibi l i ty. A l so tr oubl i ng i s the A LJ’ s fi nd i ng that w h en Sc ott tes ti fi ed she m ust have exagg er ate d he r d iffi cul ti es w i th co ncentr ati on a nd m em or y s i nce s he was abl e t o re c all th e loc at ion of th e p h a r m a c y th at sh e re gu lar ly uti l i zed. Drs. Pre sco tt, Tate and Rozenfel d did not dis

pu te Sco tt’ s co m pla i nts a b ou t m em or y a nd co ncentr ati on prob lem s, and her husband al so provi ded co rr obor ating te sti m ony. That S cot t c an fi nd herway back to a p h a r m a c y t o fill ne ed ed p re sc rip tio n s is h ar d ly enough t o disc ount co ncer ns abo ut herm em or y and co nc en tr at i o n.

I I I . C o nc l us i o n T h e jud gm en t a ffirm in g t h e d en ial of b en efit s is V ACATED and the case i s R E MA NDED w i thi ns truct i o ns th at i t be r etur ned to the S SA fo r furtherpro ceedi ngs co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

8- 1- 11