IAIN D. JOHNSTON, Magistrate Judge.
As this Court has repeatedly stated, Social Security applicants may not be sympathetic, likeable or even entirely credible. Applicants can have criminal histories, drug abuse issues, and mental health concerns, which can all interrelate. But benefits cannot be denied because an applicant is unsympathetic, unlikeable and not entirely credible. Administrative law judges must follow fundamental statutory, regulatory and case-law requirements to support their decisions to deny benefits. And the Court cannot affirm the denial of benefits when ALJs err in these ways, even when the Court's own independent review of the record reveals fundamental weaknesses as to the merits of the applicant's claim. See Pulley v. Berryhill, 295 F.Supp.3d 899 (N.D. Ill. 2018); Largent v. Colvin, 14 CV 50030, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 583, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 5, 2016); Booth v. Colvin, No. 14 CV 50347, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82754, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2016); Swagger v. Colvin, 14 CV 50020, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151502, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 2015); Koelling v. Colvin, No. 14 CV 50018, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140754, at *1-2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2015). By remanding this case, the Court in no way endorses plaintiff's character or actions. Instead, the Court simply finds that the ALJ made legal errors that require remand.
In January 2014, a few days after being released from prison, plaintiff Roy Young applied for supplemental security income. He was then 47 years old and had spent the last eight years in prison. He alleged that he was disabled based on mental illnesses (depression and anxiety) and respiratory problems (asthma, shortness of breath). In this appeal, he raises two arguments why the administrative law judge ("ALJ") erred in finding him not disabled. The first relates to the mental illnesses, the second to the respiratory problems. Because the Court finds that only the first argument warrants a remand, the Court will focus on that argument. Plaintiff argues that his mental health problems existed from an early age and have been severe, causing hallucinations and violent behavior, among other things. He claims that these problems gravely affected the trajectory of his life. The first paragraph from his opening brief summarizes this history as follows:
Dkt. #12 at 1. This summary takes a wide chronological perspective, relying principally on plaintiff's recollections, as there are no available medical records from before, or even during, his recent prison term. However, after being released from prison, plaintiff was treated at Rosecrance. One of the early progress notes described his condition as follows:
R. 286. At these initial evaluations, he was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe with psychotic features; anxiety disorder NOS; alcohol dependence; and cocaine dependence. His GAF was rated as 48. R. 302-03. Thereafter, plaintiff received treatment at Rosecrance for these problems, including group therapy and medications, although there were some significant gaps in treatment. During this roughly two-year period, his GAF score remained in the 45 to 48 range. Plaintiff's two core arguments for remand are that the ALJ downplayed the severity of his problems and relied on layperson intuitions in interpreting the medical evidence.
In her written decision, the ALJ found that plaintiff's problems were less serious than he portrayed them. In the five-step evaluation, the ALJ found at Step Two that plaintiff had the severe impairments of major depressive disorder and antisocial personality disorder. However, at Step Three, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff did not meet a mental health listing.
After considering these arguments, the Court agrees with plaintiff that the ALJ's decision, on the whole, failed to meaningfully confront all the relevant psychiatric evidence. The ALJ's analysis ignored or glossed over several important topics.
One area that was not explored was plaintiff's alcohol and drug abuse. Rosecrance diagnosed plaintiff with alcohol and cocaine dependence. Plaintiff repeatedly told doctors that he had problems with drug and alcohol problems. See, e.g., R. 293 ("Cl reports abuse of substances in the past. He stopped using because he went to prison. He used cocaine, speed, alcohol, `whatever.'").
Another issue that received little attention was plaintiff's ongoing interpersonal difficulties. Plaintiff testified that he got into fights or near-fights with others, including his own brother and a stranger outside his sister's door only two days before the hearing. R. 80-81. Plaintiff testified that he did not have any friends because he "can't even get along with them." R. 80. In summarizing plaintiff's testimony, the ALJ did not mention these facts. Plaintiff also had, as the Government characterizes it, a "lengthy" criminal history. Dkt. #15 at 2. Although the parties have not described the details of this history, there are suggestions that some of it arose from conflicts with others. During his recent, eight-year incarceration, plaintiff was placed in isolation once or twice for fighting. R. 21. Plaintiff was diagnosed by Rosecrance as having antisocial personality disorder. According to the Mayo Clinic website, people with antisocial personality disorder "tend to antagonize, manipulate or treat others harshly or with callous indifference." The record also states in multiple places that plaintiff had "homicidal ideations." See, e.g., R. 293. The ALJ did not discuss this evidence in any detail. It is true that the ALJ concluded that plaintiff had moderate problems in social functioning and limited plaintiff to jobs with only occasional contact with others. But the ALJ provided no explanation for why she reached these conclusions as opposed to finding that plaintiff's limitations in social interaction were marked. The ALJ's analysis consisted of the following sentence: "Although the claimant has alleged difficulties in getting along with others, he manages to go out to the store and to group therapy sessions, demonstrating some ability to interact and relate appropriately around others." R. 19. This explanation does not acknowledge the evidence summarized above.
The ALJ also failed to develop the record regarding plaintiff's medications. The ALJ only briefly noted that plaintiff testified that he "takes an antipsychotic, Seroquel, and an antidepressant, Lexpro." R. 21. But this information is based on plaintiff's recollections. The Court notes that there are references in the record to other drugs possibly being prescribed. So, at this point, it is unclear to the Court what those medications were, how many plaintiff was taking, and what conditions they were designed to treat. This is another issue on which expert testimony could provide assistance.
Turning next to those issues the ALJ chose to consider, the Court finds that several of her rationales were vague or incomplete. Consider plaintiff's daily activities. The ALJ stated as follows: "While the claimant reported that he lives with his parents, he prepares his own meals, does his own laundry and grocery shopping, and helps clean up around the house (4E; HT)."
Aside from the daily activities, the ALJ's remaining two credibility rationales were also not fully developed. First, the ALJ faulted plaintiff for not consistently following doctor recommendations. This was identified as the "foremost" of the three rationales. However, as the Seventh Circuit has made clear, an ALJ cannot "rely on an uninsured claimant's sparse treatment history to show that a condition was not serious without exploring why the treatment history was thin." Pierce v. Colvin, 739 F.3d 1046, 1050 (7th Cir. 2014); Craft, 539 F.3d at 679 ("although the ALJ drew a negative inference as to Craft's credibility from his lack of medical care, she neither questioned him about his lack of treatment or medicine noncompliance during that period, nor did she note that a number of medical records reflected that Craft had reported an inability to pay for regular treatment and medicine."). The ALJ failed to investigate these possible explanations. Plaintiff had just been released from prison, and apparently had little financial assets. He stated that he had trouble getting the bus to get to his therapy sessions. The ALJ also failed to consider that plaintiff's psychiatric illnesses may have affected his ability to abide by treatment recommendations. Spiva v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 346, 351 (7th Cir. 2010) ("The administrative law judge's reference to Spiva's failing to take his medications ignores one of the most serious problems in the treatment of mental illness—the difficulty of keeping patients on their medications."); Shauger v. Astrue, 675 F.3d 690, 696 (7th Cir. 2012) ("Although a history of sporadic treatment or the failure to follow a treatment plan can undermine a claimant's credibility, an ALJ must first explore the claimant's reasons for lack of medical care before drawing a negative inference").
The other remaining credibility rationale was that plaintiff "worked only sporadically" before filing for disability benefits. This statement is true. Plaintiff's lifetime earnings indicate that he never stayed at a job for any sustained period and had large gaps in employment, perhaps related to his criminal and gang history. Also, as the ALJ noted, he was in prison the eight years before filing his application. But the Court fails to understand why these facts undermine plaintiff's claim. His theory is that his psychiatric illnesses began in childhood and affected him over his entire life. Under this view, the sporadic work history indirectly supports his claim. The ALJ presumably believed that the psychiatric illnesses only emerged later in life. While possible, the ALJ cited to no evidence to support this theory.
The ALJ devoted the longest discussion of the medical evidence to the issue of plaintiff's GAF scores. Here is the analysis:
R. 25. Although some of these concerns are valid, others seem less relevant under the facts of this case. The complaint that GAF scores are one-time snapshots seems less applicable here given that apparently all of plaintiff's GAF scores were the same narrow 45-to-48 range. This is thus not a case where a claimant has cherry-picked a few low scores and ignored other higher scores. The ALJ complains that the GAF scores were rendered without an accompanying "narrative rationale," but this overlooks the fact that these scores were included in a longer medical report with other statements about plaintiff's condition.
Having concluded that a remand is warranted based on the first argument, the Court will briefly address plaintiff's second major argument. In his opening brief, plaintiff argued that the ALJ improperly evaluated whether he met the respiratory listings—i.e. 3.02 (chronic pulmonary insufficiency) and 3.03 (asthma). In its response brief, the Government argued that plaintiff had failed to show that he could meet all the specific technical requirements of these listings, which included having expiratory test results in certain ranges. The Government argued that the plaintiff waived any listings argument by not discussing these requirements. This Court agrees. In his reply, plaintiff did not respond to all these arguments, thus further waiving this argument.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted, the government's motion is denied, and this case is remanded for further consideration.
