speciality; the types of tests performed; and the consistency and support for the physician's opinion." Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 309 (7th Cir. 2010) (reversing where the ALJ did not explicitly address the checklist of factors, the proper consideration of which may have caused the ALJ to accord greater weight to the doctor's opinion) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010) (criticizing the ALJ's decision for failing to address the "required checklist of factors" and remanding with instructions to afford the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist's opinion controlling weight); Johnson v. Astrue, No. 10 C 7848, 2013 WL 453186, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2013) (remanding to consider weight afforded to treating physician's opinion with instruction to explicitly consider the factors set forth in 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2) if the ALJ determined that the treating physician's opinion was not entitled to controlling weight); Fuller v. Astrue, No. 12 C 0171, 2013 WL 617073, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2013) (same). As noted above, the ALJ discredits Dr. Barnes's opinion by citing objective medical evidence, but offers inadequate discussion for the remaining § 404.1527(c)(2) factors, including the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship between Dr. Barnes and the Plaintiff; the frequency of examination; Dr. Barnes's specialty in asthma; or the types of tests performed.
Moreover, in finding that the treating sources' opinions were entitled to "limited weight," the ALJ did not address several of the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). See, e.g., Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 309 (7th Cir. 2010) (reversing where the ALJ did not explicitly address the checklist of factors, the proper consideration of which may have caused the ALJ to accord greater weight to the doctor's opinion); Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010) (criticizing the ALJ's decision for failing to address the "required checklist of factors" and remanding with instructions to afford the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist's opinion controlling weight); Tenhove v. Colvin, 927 F. Supp. 2d 557, 571 (E.D. Wis. 2013) (criticizing ALJ's failure to discuss regulatory factors and remanding for reconsideration of weight to be afforded to treating physician's opinion); Fuller v. Astrue, No. 12 C 0171, 2013 WL 617073, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2013) (remanding to consider weight afforded to treating physician's opinion with instruction to explicitly consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) if the ALJ determined that treating physician's opinion was not entitled to controlling weight); Johnson v. Astrue, No. 10 C 7848, 2013 WL 453186, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2013) (same). The Court finds that a more thorough analysis of the § 404.1527(c)(2) factors is necessary—including consideration of the treating physicians' specialty and treatment relationship with the Plaintiff—so that the Court may better understand the ALJ's rationale for discounting the opinions of Drs. Hall and Yaseen.
Courts in the Seventh Circuit have criticized Social Security decisions in which the presiding ALJ failed to address the checklist of factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) after finding that a treating source's opinion was not entitled to controlling weight. See, e.g., Campbell, 627 F.3d at 309 (reversing where the ALJ did not explicitly address the checklist of factors, the proper consideration of which may have caused the ALJ to accord greater weight to the doctor's opinion); Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir.2010) (criticizing the ALJ's decision for failing to address the "required checklist of factors" and remanding with instructions to afford the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist's opinion controlling weight); Tenhove v. Colvin, — F.Supp.2d —, 2013 WL 694829, at *14 (E.D.Wis. February 26, 2013) (criticizing ALJ's failure to discuss regulatory factors and remanding for reconsideration of weight to be afforded to treating physician's opinion); Fuller v. Astrue, No. 12 C 0171, 2013 WL 617073, at *12 (N.D.Ill. Feb.19, 2013) (remanding to consider weight afforded to treating physician's opinion with instruction to explicitly consider the factors set forth in20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) if the ALJ determined that treating physician's opinion was not entitled to controlling weight); Johnson v. Astrue, No. 10 C 7848, 2013 WL 453186, at *11 (N.D.Ill. Feb.6, 2013) (same).
Moreover, the ALJ criticized Dr. Prasad for giving conclusions, rather than explanations, to support his opinions. The Commissioner is correct that the opinions of a treating physician that are based solely on the patient's subjective complaints may be discounted. Fuller v. Astrue, 2013 WL 617073, *9 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2013) (citing Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. 2008)). In Fuller, the ALJ discounted the treating physician's opinion, explaining that it was based on the claimant's objective complaints.
By its terms, regulation § 404.1535 applies only when the agency first finds a claimant disabled. In other words, if the ALJ finds claimant not disabled, no determination about whether substance abuse was a material factor needs to be made. Accord Jones v. Colvin, No. 09 C 7645, 2013 WL 1407779, at *16 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2013); Fuller v. Astrue, No. 12 C 0171, 2013 WL 617073, at *4 n.8 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2013); Richardson v. Astrue, No. 11 C 7080, 2013 WL 427125, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 31, 2013). Here, the ALJ found Pinson not disabled. Therefore § 404.1535 officially never came into play and the ALJ's failure to apply the regulation was not by itself error.
Because the ALJ determined that Claimant was not disabled, the ALJ did not need to determine whether his substance abuse was a material contributing factor and no further inquiry was required. See Fuller v. Astrue, 2013 WL 617073, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2013). F. The Hypothetical Posed To The VE And Relied Upon By The ALJ Included All Appropriate Limitations
her grounds. Courts in the Seventh Circuit have criticized Social Security decisions in which the presiding ALJ failed to address the checklist of factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) after finding that a treating source's opinion was not entitled to controlling weight. See, e.g., Campbell, 627 F.3d at 309 (reversing where the ALJ did not explicitly address the checklist of factors, the proper consideration of which may have caused the ALJ to accord greater weight to the doctor's opinion); Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010) (criticizing the ALJ's decision for failing to address the "required checklist of factors" and remanding with instructions to afford the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist's opinion controlling weight); Tenhove v. Colvin, — F. Supp. 2d —, 2013 WL 694829, at *14 (E.D. Wis. February 26, 2013) (criticizing ALJ's failure to discuss regulatory factors and remanding for reconsideration of weight to be afforded to treating physician's opinion); Fuller v. Astrue, No. 12 C 0171, 2013 WL 617073, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2013) (remanding to consider weight afforded to treating physician's opinion with instruction to explicitly consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) if the ALJ determined that treating physician's opinion was not entitled to controlling weight); Johnson v. Astrue, No. 10 C 7848, 2013 WL 453186, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2013) (same). In Campbell, the Seventh Circuit reviewed an ALJ's finding that the opinion of the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist, Dr. Powell, was not entitled to controlling weight.