Andrew Pavlicek v. Andrew Saul, 994 F.3d 777

Background

Plaintiff Andrew Pavlicek (49) applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI, alleging disabling anxiety manifesting as severe tremors and pseudoseizures (conversion disorder), with alleged onset in 2014; he is a former truck driver with a high-school education.
Symptoms included frequent, sometimes violent tremors and episodic pseudoseizures (some with loss of consciousness), emergency-room visits, and at least one tremor-related injury.
Treatment: supportive psychotherapy with Dr. Jacqueline Bienek (since Mar 2015) and psychiatric medication management/counseling with Dr. Bababo Opaneye (since May 2015). Dr. Bienek often observed Pavlicek as coherent and focused; Dr. Opaneye later completed a June 2017 report finding extreme functional limitations and that Pavlicek met Listing 12.04.
Two non-examining state-agency physicians (Drs. Jusino-Berrios and Harris) reviewed records in 2015 and found moderate limitations in social functioning and concentration/persistence/pace but concluded Pavlicek could perform simple, repetitive tasks at a consistent pace.
The ALJ found severe impairments but an RFC allowing medium work limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks with limited interactions; the ALJ largely rejected Dr. Opaneye’s extreme opinion, credited the agency reviewers, accepted vocational expert testimony that jobs existed, and denied benefits. The district court’s judgment denying benefits was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ improperly rejected treating psychiatrist Dr. Opaneye's opinion that Pavlicek met Listing 12.04 and was unemployable	ALJ gave inadequate reasons and ignored record support for Dr. Opaneye’s listing and extreme limitations	ALJ discounted the opinion because it conflicted with Dr. Opaneye’s own treatment notes, relied on claimant’s subjective reports, and lacked retrospective support	Affirmed — discounting was supported by substantial evidence (noting some imperfect reasoning but the inconsistency between the June 2017 report and treatment notes was dispositive)
Whether the ALJ gave improper weight to non‑examining agency consultants	ALJ overrelied on non‑examining opinions and their forms were internally inconsistent	Their narrative RFCs reasonably translated the checklist moderate ratings and were consistent with the record; later evidence did not materially change conclusions	Affirmed — ALJ permissibly relied on consultants; narratives were consistent with checklist ratings
Whether the RFC/hypothetical erroneously allowed complex instructions instead of limiting to simple instructions	RFC/hypothetical should have limited Pavlicek to simple (one- or two‑step) instructions per consultants	ALJ also posed a hypothetical limiting to simple instructions and VE testified such limitation was not work‑preclusive	Affirmed — any error harmless because the VE ruled simple‑instruction limitation non‑work‑preclusive
Whether the hypothetical failed to account for limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace	Hypothetical did not capture C/P/P limits from tremors and pseudoseizures, so VE testimony was unreliable	The hypothetical incorporated the consultants’ accommodations for moderate C/P/P limitations; plaintiff offered no concrete alternative restrictions	Affirmed — substantial evidence supports that the hypothetical adequately addressed moderate C/P/P limits

Key Cases Cited

Walker v. Berryhill, 900 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2018) (treating physician opinion standards under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527)
Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2007) (treating‑opinion may be discounted when inconsistent with treatment notes)
Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2014) (rejecting ALJ reasoning that ignored evidence supporting treating physician)
Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2011) (ALJ must not ignore evidence that could support a treating physician’s opinion)
Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (substantial‑evidence standard explained)
Varga v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2015) (narrative RFC must adequately translate checklist limitations)
Moreno v. Berryhill, 882 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2018) (ALJ should not rely on an outdated opinion when later evidence could change it)
Burmester v. Berryhill, 920 F.3d 507 (7th Cir. 2019) (permissible reliance on non‑examining consultants where record supports)
Jozefyk v. Berryhill, 923 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2019) (claimant must propose concrete work restrictions for C/P/P limitations)