Louquetta O'Connor-Spinner v. Carolyn Colvin, 832 F.3d 690

Plaintiff Louquetta O’Connor-Spinner has long-standing depressive disorder plus several severe physical impairments; record includes repeated diagnoses (including “major depressive disorder, recurrent severe”) and GAF scores around 50–55.
Earlier (2006) ALJ found depression severe but, at Step 5, limited claimant to simple sedentary jobs and denied benefits; this court (7th Cir.) vacated in 2010 for failing to account for moderate limits in concentration, persistence, and pace (CPP) and moderate limits in responding to supervisors. 627 F.3d 614.
On remand the case was reassigned; the new ALJ (2012) concluded depression was not and never had been a severe impairment, relied on two non‑examining state psychologists and discounted treating/examining clinicians and community mental‑health records.
The new ALJ’s RFC for sedentary work omitted mental limits on CPP and on responding appropriately to supervisors; the vocational expert was not asked to evaluate the effect of the specific moderate mental limitations the court had previously identified.
The Seventh Circuit found the ALJ cherry‑picked evidence, substituted his own judgment for medical opinions, and failed to follow the prior remand instructions; it vacated and remanded for the ALJ to assess limitations from plaintiff’s major depression and to probe those limitations with a vocational expert.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ correctly determined at Step 2 that the claimant’s major depressive disorder was not a severe impairment	O’Connor‑Spinner: treating and examining records (diagnoses, GAF scores, symptom history) show depression is severe and causes at least moderate limitations in CPP and responding to supervisors	Commissioner: ALJ considered the evidence he found important; some notations were minor and ALJ need not discuss every record	Reversed: ALJ’s Step 2 finding not supported by substantial evidence; ALJ improperly discounted treating/examining evidence and substituted his own judgment.
Whether the ALJ satisfied the prior remand by accounting for moderate limitations in CPP and in responding to supervisors when posing hypotheticals to the vocational expert	O’Connor‑Spinner: prior remand required the ALJ to include/assess those mental limitations and pose appropriate hypotheticals; absent that, VE testimony is unreliable	Commissioner/ALJ: eliminating fast‑paced/strict quota jobs and limiting physical requirements sufficed; VE testimony showed 10% off‑task tolerated, >15% precludes work	Reversed: ALJ failed to follow remand; he did not pose required limitations to VE or obtain VE support that excluding fast‑paced/quota jobs equates to a moderate CPP limitation; remand required.

O’Connor-Spinner v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2010) (prior reversal directing ALJ to account for moderate mental limitations)
Price v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2015) (discussion of GAF score meaning)
Liskowitz v. Astrue, 559 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2009) (finality of Commissioner decision after district court review)
Yurt v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 2014) (requirement to build a logical bridge between evidence of mental impairments and RFC)
Bates v. Colvin, 736 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2013) (reversing where ALJ ignored evidence of serious mental‑health issues)
Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2014) (ALJ reversal for disregarding evidence undermining nondisability finding)
Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2010) (waxing and waning symptoms consistent with recurrent major depression)
Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2008) (chronic mental illness and medication effects produce variability in functioning)
Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2009) (ALJ must explore work restrictions caused by impairments)