O'Connor-Spinner v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 614

O'Connor-Spinner, a 41-year-old with depression and several physical impairments, filed January 2004 applications for SSI and DIB, alleging disability since December 2003 due to depression and physical conditions.
Record shows pre-2003 signs of depression and earlier treatment history; a 2001 disability application was denied after a state physician found mental impairments not sufficiently severe at that time.
Medicals from 2004–2005 document ongoing treatment for physical ailments with only sparse mental-health treatment history; no mental-health records after 2002 in the administrative record.
Dr. Kamla Paul examined her in May 2004; she reported past confusion, crying spells, violent outbursts, and attempted suicide; Paul found adequate abstraction/remote memory but poor immediate memory and dysphoric mood, diagnosing depression.
Dr. D. Unversaw also reviewed the file in May 2004 and concluded a moderate limitation on concentration, persistence and pace, with a separate checkbox indicating a limitation on receiving instructions and responding to supervisors; a third-party statement noted she responds to rude others by becoming rude.
At the January 2006 hearing, the ALJ asked a vocational expert (VE) about past and other work, using increasingly restrictive hypotheticals; the most restrictive hypothetical did not include a concentration limitation, though the ALJ later acknowledged such a limitation in the RFC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ erred by omitting concentration limitation from the VE hypotheticals	O'Connor-Spinner's moderate concentration/persistence/pace limitation was not included in the VE's hypothetical, though the RFC acknowledged it.	ALJ implicitly incorporated limitations by restricting to routine, repetitive tasks with simple instructions.	Remand required; VE not adequately oriented to total limitations.
Whether the ALJ failed to address a social limitation on responding to supervisors	DR. Unversaw found a moderate limitation in accepting instructions and responding to supervision, which the ALJ did not incorporate or discuss.	The ALJ may rely on other record evidence and need not discuss every form paragraph; the weight given to Unversaw's findings is within discretion.	Remand required to explain crediting and account for this limitation in the hypothetical.

Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503 (7th Cir.2009) (limits of VE's consideration when hypotheticals omit specific limitations)
Johansen v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 283 (7th Cir.2002) (low-stress/hypothetical limitations addressing concentration-related issues)
Sims v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 424 (7th Cir.2002) (addressing hypotheticals and concentration-related limitations)
Jens v. Barnhart, 347 F.3d 209 (7th Cir.2003) (requires listing concentration limitations in the hypothetical)
Stewart v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 679 (7th Cir.2009) (VE must be informed of total claimant limitations; simple tasks may not suffice)
Kasarsky v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 539 (7th Cir.2003) (hypotheticals must address concentration limitations beyond simple task framing)
Liskowitz v. Astrue, 559 F.3d 736 (7th Cir.2009) (final determination reviewed; substantial evidence standard on ALJ decision)
Giles ex rel. Giles v. Astrue, 483 F.3d 483 (7th Cir.2007) (ALJ must explain why evidence supporting disability is not credited)
Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881 (7th Cir.2001) (explanation required when evidence weighs in favor of disability)