Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704

Background

Punzio applied for Social Security disability benefits; the ALJ denied the claim after finding her impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment and that she retained some light-work capacity.
The treating psychiatrist, Dr. Mahmood, assessed severe mental limitations preventing unskilled work and likely absenteeism, but the ALJ gave this opinion no weight because it was solicited by counsel and inconsistent with treatment notes.
The record shows a long history of bipolar/depression, dyslexia, memory problems, and intermittent treatment from multiple providers dating back to 1998.
A vocational expert testified that with the claimed mental limitations no jobs in the national economy were available, yet the ALJ relied on a more limited residual functional capacity to deny benefits.
Punzio’s attorney submitted Dr. Mahmood’s July 2007 assessment; the ALJ considered it but ultimately rejected it, relying on purported inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the treaters’ notes.
The district court upheld the ALJ’s decision; on appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding the ALJ erred in discounting the treating-source evidence and credibility determinations, and remanded for benefits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ properly credited the treating-source opinion.	Mahmood's assessment is well-supported by records and consistent with other treatment evidence.	The opinion was not adequately supported and was inconsistently supported by treatment notes.	ALJ erred; Mahmood's opinion must be given controlling weight.
Whether the ALJ adequately explained credibility of Punzio's testimony.	The ALJ failed to provide a proper credibility analysis beyond boilerplate language.	Credibility assessment is adequate and supported by the record.	ALJ's credibility findings were inadequate; must be remanded.
Whether the ALJ properly integrated Dr. Mahmood's mental residual functional capacity with vocational evidence.	Dr. Mahmood's limitations would preclude all work; VE testimony confirms disability.	The ALJ properly framed the residual functional capacity within the capability for light work.	The VE's testimony and Mahmood’s assessment indicate disability; error in rejection.
Whether it was permissible to rely on the fact that the opinion was solicited by counsel to reject it.	Solicitation by counsel does not invalidate the medical opinion or its weight.	Solicited evidence is suspect and may be discounted.	Solicitation does not justify discounting a well-supported medical opinion.
Whether the record supports a finding of disability since July 2003 based on Mahmood's assessment and VE testimony.	Combined evidence supports disability as of July 2003.	The ALJ appropriately weighed evidence to deny benefits.	The court held disability finding warranted; remand for benefits.

Key Cases Cited

McClesky v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2010) (reaffirming credibility framework for ALJ determinations)
Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2010) (ALS credibility standard in social security appeals)
Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2009) (per curiam on credibility and evidence weighing)
Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2009) (vocational testimony and limitations impact on disability)
Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2008) (limitations from mental illness and absence days affect unskilled work)
Spiva v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2010) (mental-impairment evaluation and treatment-consistency analysis)
Pate-Fires v. Astrue, 564 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. 2009) (importance of treating-source testimony in disability determinations)
Hofslien v. Barnhart, 439 F.3d 375 (7th Cir. 2006) (treating source opinion and weight standards)
Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2001) (workplace-function impairment not eliminated by some improvement)