|
Frederick J. Daley and Heather Freeman
gave presentations at the NOSSCR conference held in Washington, D.C. from May 13 to 16, 2009.
For more info,
click
here.
POsted 5/18/2009
Travis v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-1774
(N.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2009).
The District Court issued an outright reversal in this case
because
the ALJ did not properly consider the medical
evidence in the record, as well as three treating
physicians documenting the plaintiff’s disabling mental
impairments that exist despite any drug or alcohol
abuse.
Mr. Travis was represented
by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with assistance from
Kate Hoppe.
Jenkins v. Astrue, No. 07-cv-2193
(C.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2009).
The District Court issued a remand in this casebecause the ALJ's RFC determination lacked a
medical opinion upon which to rely, relying on State
agency opinions he expressly rejected and by failing to
adequately explain and trace a path from the evidence to
his RFC findings.
Ms. Jenkins was represented
by Marcie E. Goldbloom with assistance from
Suzanne Blaz.
Ingram v. Astrue, No. 07-cv-2157
(C.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2009).
The District Court issued a remand in this case.
Ms. Ingram was represented
by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with assistance from
Suzanne Blaz.
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
April 6, 2009:
Discretionary clauses under heavy fire.
Click on the
link to read the article.
posted 4/10/2009
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
March 23, 2009:
Ruling shows courts must take more responsibility.
Click on the
link to read the article.
Richardson v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-142
(S.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2009).
The District Court issued a remand in this case
because
the ALJ failed to discuss or weigh the findings
of therapist Miller or his functional assessment report,
the Court found the ALJ’s credibility determination
“troubling,” failing to make a proper determination and
consider all the factors as required by SSR 96-7p and
the ALJ’s hypotheticals and RFC finding failed to
adequately reflect the evidence supporting the findings
of moderate limitations in the areas of concentration,
persistence and pace and social functioning. Ms. Richardson was represented
by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with assistance from
Suzanne Blaz.
posted 3/24/2009
Mark DeBofsky was nominated as a finalist for
LexisNexis' Insurance Law Center
Policyholder Attorney of the Year award. Mark
was the only attorney from Chicago nominated.
Mark DeBofsky was one of the presenters talking
about, "Mediation Skills and Strategies" at the 12th
Annual Labor & Employment Law Update held in the
USB Tower in Chicago, Illinois, on March 20, 2009 and at
the Hilton Garden Inn in Champaign, Illinois on March
25, 2009.
Davis v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-133 (N.D. Ind. Mar.
12, 2009).
The government agreed to a voluntary remand after
the case had been briefed by Daley, DeBofsky and Bryant.
Ms. Davis was represented by Marcie E. Goldbloom
with assistance from Suzanne Blaz.
posted 3/20/2009
Leger
v. Tribune Company Long Term Disability Benefit Plan,
2009 U.S.App.LEXIS 5108 (7th Cir. March 9, 2009).
The Seventh Circuit remanded this case for further
proceedings. Plaintiff was represented
by
Mark DeBofsky.
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
March 16, 2009:
Ruling exposes defects in insurer's determination.
Click on the
link to read the article.
posted 3/16/2009
McKinney v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-309 (E.D. Ken.
Mar. 11, 2009).
The government declined to brief the case, but
instead agreed to a voluntary remand. This
occurred after the case had been briefed for district
court by Daley, DeBofsky and Bryant. Ms. McKinney
was represented by Frederick J. Daley with
assistance from
Kate Hoppe.
Guerrero v. Astrue, No. 07-cv-2246 (D. Hi.
Mar. 10, 2009).
The District Court adopted the MJ's Report &
Recommendation and issued a remand in this case.
Ms. Guerrero was represented by Frederick J. Daley,
Jr. with assistance from
Kimberly Jones.
Minyard v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-2023 (N.D. Ga.
Mar. 10, 2009).
The government declined to brief the case, but
instead agreed to a voluntary remand. This
occurred after the case had been briefed for district
court by Daley, DeBofsky and Bryant. Ms. Minyard
was represented by Marcie E. Goldbloom with
assistance from Suzanne Blaz.
Anderson v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-613 (N.D. Ill.
Mar. 10, 2009).
The District Court issued a remand in this case
because the ALJ failed to explore Mr. Anderson's reasons
for not pursuing certain treatment, as required by SSR
96-7p, preferring to make inappropriate inferences,
wrongly found that Plaintiff's ability to read and use a
computer undermined his medication side-effects, and
improperly rejected the credibility of Mr. Anderson's
wife. Additionally, the hypotheticals failed to
account for some o the ALJ's own RFC findings as well as
Mr. Anderson's pain and medication side-effects.
Mr. Anderson was represented by Frederick J. Daley,
Jr. with assistance from
Kimberly Jones.
Huber v. Astrue, No. 07-cv-2246 (C.D. Ill.
Mar. 3, 2009).
The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's
Report & Recommendation and issued a remand in this
case. Ms. Huber was represented by Frederick J.
Daley, Jr. with assistance from Suzanne Blaz.
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
March 2, 2009:
Consider this before wrongfully denying a claim.
Click on the
link to read the article.
Winston v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-126 (N.D. Ind. Feb.
26, 2009).
The District Court issued a remand in this case
because the ALJ improperly dismissed the treating
physician opinion as inconsistent when his opinion was
consistent with someone with a bipolar condition, who
had both good and bad days, resulting in an incomplete
RFC and hypotheticals. Mr. Winston was represented
by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with assistance from
Suzanne Blaz.
Irvine v.
Astrue, No. 07-cv-50250 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26,
2009).
The District Court issued a remand in this case.
Mr. Irvine was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr.
with assistance from Suzanne Blaz.
Frederick J. Daley presented a seminar with
former VE Kathryn Heatherly called, "Building a Winning
Hypothetical: Getting the Most From VE testimony," at
the Spring 2009 NADR conference held in Baltimore, MD.
For more information,
click here.
posted 3/11/2009
Spencer v.
Astrue, No. 07-cv-4641 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 12,
2009).
The District Court issued a remand in this case
because the ALJ made his own physical RFC assessment,
splitting the difference between the State agency RFC
and Plaintiff's testimony. Ms. Spencer was
represented by Marcie E. Goldbloom with
assistance from Suzanne Blaz.
Frederick J. Daley and Marcie E. Goldbloom
presented a seminar, "Succeed at the Administrative Law
Judge Hearing" covering a variety of topics to help
others gain the skills you need to handle Social
Security Disability Cases in Oak Brook, Illinois on
February 17, 2009, and in Chicago, Illinois on February
18, 2009.
posted 2/17/2009
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
February 2, 2009:
Court right to look at big picture in benefits case.
Click on the
link to read the article.
Mark DeBofsky and Sandra Dye were named in
the Illinois Super
Lawyers 2009.
Mr.
DeBofsky was named a Super Lawyer in Employee
Benefits/ERISA and was listed in the top 100 lawyers.
Ms. Dye was named an Illinois Rising Star in the Social
Security Disability field.
posted 2/3/2009
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
January 19, 2009:
Ruling outlines scope of review in ERISA case.
Click on the
link to read the article.
posted 1/23/2009
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
December 29, 2008:
Ruling puts Glenn decision to work.
Click on the
link to read the article.
posted 12/30/2008
Hemminger
v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-186 (W.D. Wisc. Dec. 16,
2008).
The District Court issued a remand in this case
because the ALJ
failed to call a vocational expert to testify regarding
the occupational impact of the requirement that
Plaintiff be allowed to change position from sitting to
standing every half an hour, and instead reached her
conclusion at Step Five based upon the
Medical-Vocational Guidelines; improperly relied on
notations that Plaintiff’s condition was stable to
discredit her treating doctor’s opinion and Plaintiff’s
testimony; erroneously misconstrues Plaintiff’s doctors’
recommendations that she do some walking against her;
inappropriately held the lack of further treatment other
than medication against Plaintiff when Plaintiff
testified that her doctor indicated there was nothing
more that could be done, inappropriately playing doctor;
failed to build a logical bridge from the evidence to
her credibility conclusions; misconstrued the Medical
Expert’s testimony regarding Plaintiff’s mental
limitations; and failed to properly consider the effect
of her combination of impairments on her ability to work.
Ms. Hemminger was represented by Frederick J. Daley,
Jr. with assistance from Suzanne Blaz. posted 12/16/2008
Sassan v.
Astrue, No. 08-cv-120 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 15,
2008).
The District Court issued an order adopting the
Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation to remand
this case because the ALJ
failed to address Plaintiff’s undisputed limitations in
neck flexion and pushing and pulling and misinterpreted
treating evidence in this regard, resulting in an
erroneous RFC determination and erroneous hypotheticals
to the VE. Ms. Sassan was represented by
Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with assistance from
Marcie Goldbloom and Kate Hoppe. posted 12/16/2008
Speer-Cihlar
v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-911 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12,
2008).
The District Court issued a remand in this case
because the ALJ
repeatedly failed to build a bridge from the evidence to
his conclusions, disregarding nearly all of the medical
professional opinions of record, and failed to indicate
his rationale made meaningful review impossible and
which resulted in an incomplete RFC determination and
erroneous hypotheticals. Additionally, the ALJ
ignored evidence from Plaintiff’s treating doctor and
improperly misconstrued Plaintiff’s minimal activities
against her. Ms. Speer-Cihlar was
represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with
assistance from Suzanne Blaz. posted 12/16/2008
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
December 15, 2008:
Insurer functioned as administrator: court.
Click on the
link to read the article. posted 12/16/2008
Brown v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-2052 (N.D. Ill.
Dec. 11, 2008).
The government declined to brief the case, but
instead agreed to a voluntary remand. This
occurred after the case had been briefed for district
court by Daley, DeBofsky and Bryant. Ms. Brown was
represented by Frederick J. Daley with assistance
from
Kim Jones.
posted 12/16/2008
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
December 1, 2008:
Ruling an indictment of Unum's operations.
Click on the
link to read the article.
Hennessy v. Astrue, No. 07-cv-6923 (N.D. Ill.
Nov. 21, 2008).
The District Court issued a remand in this case
because the ALJ:
erred in rejecting the treating doctor’s 2007 opinion
because there was no contradictory opinion and based
upon his own lay opinion, noting that an consultative
examination from 2 years prior to the opinion cannot
invalidate it; and did not provide an articulated
credibility determination, failed to consider objective
evidence supporting Plaintiff’s allegations and relied
on mere speculation. Mr. Hennessy was
represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with
assistance from
Kate Hoppe and Suzanne Blaz.
Kubiak v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-1108 (W.D. Ten.
Nov. 28, 2008).
The government declined to brief the case, but
instead agreed to a voluntary remand. This
occurred after the case had been briefed for district
court by Daley, DeBofsky and Bryant. Mr. Kubiak
was represented by Marcie E. Goldbloom with
assistance from
Kate Hoppe.
Allen v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-2127 (C.D. Ill.
Nov. 19, 2008).
The government declined to brief the case, but
instead agreed to a voluntary remand. This
occurred after the case had been briefed for district
court by Daley, DeBofsky and Bryant. Ms. Allen was
represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with
assistance from Suzanne Blaz.
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
November 24, 2008:
An end to lenient regime of claim reviews.
Click on the
link to read the article.
posted 12/1/2008
Fuller v. Astrue, No. 07-cv-6992 (N.D. Ill. Nov.
14, 2008).
The District Court issued a remand in this case
because the ALJ failed: to build a bridge from the
evidence to his RFC conclusions, ignoring an
"overwhelming" list of medical records; to consider her
bipolar condition,
erroneously held that she was currently working, despite
this not being established in the record, against her;
to consider the logical consequence of the ME’s
testimony that she met a Listing “at times”; and
erroneously held drug use against her. Ms.
Fuller was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr.
with assistance from Suzanne Blaz.
Davidson v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-209 (W.D. Wisc.
Nov. 7, 2008).
The District Court issued a remand in this case
because the ALJ failed to incorporate all of the mental
limitations into the hypotheticals. Ms. Davidson
was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with
assistance from
Kate Hoppe.
posted 11/18/2008
Mark DeBofsky spoke at the ABA ERISA Litigation
conference held on November 6-7, 2008, in Chicago,
Illinois. He presented the Plaintiff's side in a
seminar called, "Special Topics in Welfare Litigation."
posted 11/7/2008
Livingston v.
Astrue, No. 07-cv-2202 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 5,
2008).
The District Court issued a remand in this case
because the ALJ:
inappropriately disregard Plaintiff’s treating
physicians’ opinions; gave reasons for his credibility
determination that were either without foundation or
contrary to the record, resulting in an erroneous and
patently wrong credibility determination; impermissibly
substituted his medical opinion for that of Plaintiff’s
treating physicians and failed to consider all of the
evidence when determining RFC; failed to provide did not
provide any explanation for failing to consider the
evidence regarding Plaintiff’s headaches, neck pain, and
feeding tub and properly incorporate all of Plaintiff
limitations into the hypotheticals to the VE.
Mr. Livingston was represented by Frederick J. Daley,
Jr. with assistance from
Kate Hoppe.
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
November 3, 2008:
Court finds conflict in review of claim.
Click on the
link to read the article.
posted 11/5/2008
Mark DeBofsky spoke at the 39th Annual Meeting of
the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law at a
workshop called "Detection of Malingering Disability
Evaluations" on October 25, 2008 at the Westin in
Seattle, Washington.
posted 10/25/2008
Echols v. Astrue, No. 07-cv-2812 (N.D. Ill. Oct.
22, 2008).
The District Court issued a remand in this case
because the ALJ failed to build a bridge and articulate
the basis for all of her RFC determinations as well as
failing to follow SSR 00-4p and address contradictory
vocational evidence provided by counsel. Mr.
Echols was represented by Marcie E. Goldbloom
with assistance from
Kate Hoppe.
Park
v. Astrue, No. 07-cv-2227 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 21,
2008).
The District Court issued a remand in this case,
adopting the Magistrate Judge's R&R finding that the ALJ
did not provide any explanation for failing to consider
the evidence relating to the plaintiff’s COPD and
breathing problems. Mr. Park was represented by
Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with assistance from
Kate Hoppe.
posted 10/22/2008
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
October 13, 2008:
Claimant not required to exhaust issues.
Click on the
link to read the article.
posted 10/14/2008
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
October 6, 2008:
Insurer's own guidelines dismissed as not binding.
Click on the
link to read the article.
Mark DeBofsky completed a Chapter 38 for Psychology
Press's new book called,
"Disability benefits
adjudications: Attorneys representing disability
claimants."
Neuropsychology of Malingering Casebook, 476 (Joel
E. Morgan & Jerry J. Sweet eds. 2008). You can
view the Chapter by clicking
here; however, it is not available for distribution.
posted 10/8/2008
Kelley v.
Astrue, No. 07-cv-6350 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26,
2008).
The District Court issued a remand in this case,
stating that the ALJ ignored evidence, including earlier
reports and testimony, without explanation and failed to
address her IRWE, contrary to SSR 83-33, when
determining there was SGA at Step One. Ms. Kelley
was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with
assistance from
Kimberly Jones.
Oliver v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-714 (N.D. Ill.
Sept. 26, 2008).
The government declined to brief the case, but
instead agreed to a voluntary remand. This
occurred after the case had been briefed for district
court by Daley, DeBofsky and Bryant. Mr. Oliver
was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with
assistance from Suzanne Blaz.
posted 9/29/2008
On September 25, 2008, Mark DeBofsky spoke on a
panel about Supreme Court ERISA Litigaiton Issues.
The panel was presented by The John Marshall Law School
Center for Tax Law and Employee Benefits.
Allshouse v.
Astrue, No. 07-cv-12516 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 19,
2008).
The District Court adopted the MJ R&R remanding
the case. The Magistrate found that the ALJ herein
failed to: consider evidence of Allshouse's alleged
plantar fasciitis and RSD as well as SSR 03-2p; properly
evaluate Dr. Tracy's opinion
and evidence; and make a proper credibility
determination that gives any specifics as to why
Allshouse was found not credible. Mr.
Allshouse was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr.
with assistance from
Kate Hoppe.
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
September 22, 2008:
Court rethinks its approach after Glenn ruling.
Click on the
link to read the article.
posted 9/24/2008
Matera v. Astrue, No. 07-cv-227 (D. HI Sept. 16,
2008).
The District Court issued an outright reversal in
this case. Ms. Matera was represented by
Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with assistance from
Kimberly Jones.
Archey v.
Astrue, No. 07-cv-2122 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 12,
2008).
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report
and recommendation to issue an outright reversal in this
case. The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ did
not take into account the time Archey needed to undergo
and recover from phlebotomy treatments, which rendered
him off task significantly enough that, based upon the
VE's testimony in the case, there would be no work he
could perform due to these excessive absences. Mr.
Archey was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr.
with assistance from Suzanne Blaz.
Henriksen v. Astrue, No. 07-cv-6142 (N.D. Ill.
Sept. 9, 2008).
The Court issued a
remand in this case because the ALJ: ignored the
assessment of a psychological consultative examiner,
failing to build a bridge from the evidence to his
conclusions; and exaggerated Henriksen's level of daily
activities and employed that exaggeration as a basis for
finding her not credible. Ms. Henriksen was
represented by Marcie E. Goldbloom with
assistance from Suzanne Blaz.
Gaylor v. Astrue,
No. 07-2206 (7th Cir. Sept. 8, 2008).
The Seventh Circuit remanded this case for
further proceedings. In its decision, the Seventh
Circuit found that the ALJ did not properly evaluate and
consider the evidence of record and discredited the
manifest weight of the evidence with only minimal
explanation, failing to build a bridge from the evidence
to his conclusions. As a result, the ALJ's
credibility determination, which relied predominantly on
his erroneous reading of the medical evidence, could not
be upheld. Also, the ALJ's credibility
determination failed to articulate why Gaylor's
testimony was contradicted by his daily activities.
Finally, the Seventh Circuit found that the ALJ failed
to consider the aggregate of Gaylor's problems, and
failed to explain the basis in the record for his RFC
determination and, as a result, gave flawed
hypotheticals to the VE that did not fully capture
Gaylor's limitations. Mr. Gaylor was
represented by Marcie E. Goldbloom.
posted 9/16/2008
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
September 8, 2008:
Appeals court clarifies factors for fee awards.
Click on the
link to read the article.
posted 9/9/2008
Mark DeBofsky's article, "Mediating
in the Appellate Court" was published in this
summer's ABA Litigation magazine, 34 Litigation 4
(Summer 2008).
Brady v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-374 (N.D. GA. Aug.
28, 2008).
The government declined to brief the case, but
instead agreed to a voluntary remand. This
occurred after the case had been briefed for district
court by Daley, DeBofsky and Bryant. Ms. Brady was
represented by Marcie E. Goldbloom.
Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. Aug. 22,
2008).
The Seventh Circuit remanded this case because
the ALJ: failed to apply the special technique and
properly evaluate Plaintiff's mental limitations, which
adversely affected the RFC finding and hypotheticals;
erroneously found Plaintiff capable of simple, unskilled
work, which is vague and fails to account for all of the
evidence of record; merely recited the medical evidence
of record, but failed to properly weigh it and trace a
path from the evidence to his conclusions; failed to
consider his lack of finances when holding a lack of
treatment against him, contrary to SSR 96-7p; wrongly
found Plaintiff's subjective complaints were not
documented in the medical record; ignored Plaintiff's
testimony as to how he performed his daily activities;
failed to properly explore all potential inconsistencies
between the VE's testimony and the DOT. Mr. Craft
was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with
assistance from Heather Aloe.
Washnieski v. Astrue, No. 07-cv-598 (E.D. Wisc.
Aug. 22, 2008).
The Court issued a
remand in this case because the ALJ failed to conduct a
function-by-function assessment of Plaintiff's
abilities, as required by SSR 96-8p, and failed to
inquire as to any conflicts, as required by SSR 00-4p.
Mr. Washnieski was represented by Frederick J. Daley,
Jr. with assistance from Suzanne Blaz.
posted 9/7/2008
Wilson v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-10286 (E.D. Mich.
Aug. 18, 2008).
The government declined to brief the case, but
instead agreed to a voluntary remand. This
occurred after the case had been briefed for district
court by Daley, DeBofsky and Bryant. Mr. Wilson
was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with
assistance from Marcie E. Goldbloom and Kate Hoppe.
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
August 18, 2008:
Judge sees importance of discovery ruling.
Click on the
link to read the article.
posted 8/19/2008
Hart
v. Astrue, No. 08-C-0007 (W.D. Wisc. Aug.
11, 2008). The
Court
issued a remand in this case because the ALJ made a
conclusory credibility finding that fails to follow SSR
96-7p and properly consider all of the evidence, and
took an overly simplistic view of the treating opinions,
failing to properly consider their statements. The
Court complained that ALJ Schneider's decisions
continually fail to be well-reasoned. Ms.
Hart was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr.
with assistance from Suzanne Blaz.
posted 8/13/2008
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
August 4, 2008:
Ruling underscores value of treating doctor's opinion.
Click on the
link to read the article.
posted 8/4/2008
Smith v. Astrue, No. 07-C-588 (N.D. Ind.
July 29, 2008).
The Court
issued a remand in this case because the ALJ failed to
properly specify the reasons for his credibility
determination, failed to consider all of the relevant
evidence and did not trace a path from the evidence to
his conclusions resulting in an erroneous RFC and
hypotheticals, thus, resulting in erroneous VE testimony.
Mr. Smith was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr.
with assistance from Kim Jones.
posted 7/31/2008
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
July 21, 2008:
Bankruptcy Omission Led to Estoppel.
Click on the
link to read the article.
Adams v. Astrue, No. 07-cv-2201 (C.D. IL July
17, 2008).
The government declined to brief the case, but
instead agreed to a voluntary remand. This
occurred after the case had been briefed for district
court by Daley, DeBofsky and Bryant. Mr. Adams was
represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with
assistance from law clerk Suzanne Blaz.
posted 7/23/2008
Gardner v. Astrue, No. 07-C-5083 (N.D.
Ill. July 15, 2008).
The Court
issued a remand in this case because the ALJ's
hypotheticals to the VE were flawed, indicating that the
ALJ did not clarify with the VE why Plaintiff could
perform light work with limitations to 4 hours of
walking and standing and finding that the ALJ improperly
distilled Plaintiff's mental limitations into the
ability to perform simple, routine tasks, which was not
supported by any medical opinion of record. Mr.
Gardner was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr.
with assistance from Kate Hoppe and Suzanne Blaz.
Grieves v. Astrue, No. 07-C-4404 (N.D.
Ill. July 11, 2008). The
Court
issued a remand in this case because the ALJ:
failed to make a proper credibility determination
pursuant to SSR 96-7p, failing to consider Plaintiff's
pain medication side-effects, wrongly construing her
daily activities against her credibility, drawing
unsupported inferences from the record and failing to
fully and fairly develop the record; and he improperly
discounted the treating physician’s opinion by playing
doctor, making his own RFC assessment and only
addressing that evidence which supported his ultimate
RFC finding. Ms. Grieves was represented by
Marcie E. Goldbloom with assistance from Kate
Hoppe and Suzanne Blaz.
posted 7/16/2008
Mark DeBofsky spoke at the Million Dollar
Roundtable Foundation's Annual Meeting, which took place
in Toronto, Canada from June 22nd through June 26th.
posted 6/27/2008
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
June 23, 2008:
Ruling means end for lenient regime of reviews.
Click on the
link to read the article.
Raflik v. Astrue, No. 07-C-854 (E.D.Wisc.
June 17, 2008).
The Court
issued a remand in this case because the ALJ failed to
inquire as to whether the VE's testimony conflicted with
the DOT pursuant to SSR 00-4p. Ms. Raflik was
represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with
assistance from Suzanne Blaz.
posted 6/24/2008
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
June 9, 2008:
Ruling shows problems with review system.
Click on the
link to read the article.
Evans v. Astrue,
No. 07-C-290 (N.D. Ind. June 2, 2008).
The Court
issued a remand in this case because the ALJ failed to
build a bridge from the evidence to his RFC conclusions
and failed to discuss the specific duties involved in
Plaintiff's prior job or assess her ability to perform
those specific tasks. Ms. Evans was
represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with
assistance from Kate Hoppe and Suzanne Blaz.
posted 6/9/2008
On Friday, June 6, 2008, Mark DeBofsky spoke
about Subrogation and Reimbursement at the 22nd Annual
National Institute on ERISA Basics, which was held in
Chicago, Illinois from June 4th through June 6th.
posted 6/6/2008
Pfeiffer v.
Astrue, No. 07-C-566 (W.D. Wisc. May 30,
2008). The Court
issued a remand in this case because the ALJ failed to
properly weigh the medical opinions of record, which the
Court noted showed greater limitations than the ALJ
found. Additionally, the Court noted that the ALJ
inappropriately dismissed the opinion of Plaintiff's
psychotherapist, contrary to SSR 06-3p, as an
unacceptable medical source and failed to follow SSR
00-4p and verify that the VE's testimoy was consistent
with the DOT. Mr. Pfeiffer was represented by
Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with assistance from
Heather Aloe.
posted 5/30/2008
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
May 19, 2008:
Offset Ruling Beneficial to Claimants.
Click on the
link to read the article.
On Wednesday, May 21, 2008, Mark DeBofsky spoke
during a 90-minute ABA TIPS teleconference about,
"Mental Illness Clauses in Disability Income Insurance
Policies." The program will be teleconferenced
from George Washington University Law School in
Washington, D.C.
posted 5/21/2008
Dillon v. Astrue,
No. 07-C-3652 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2008).
The Court
issued a remand in this case because the ALJ: improperly
considered Plaintiff's alcohol addiction prior to
finding him not disabled; failed to sufficiently explain
his reasons for rejecting a treating doctor's opinion;
selectively relied on parts of a State agency opinion
while ignoring other mental limitations noted in the
MRFC; and erroneously relied upon the Medical-Vocational
Grids and should have, at a minimum, called upon a
Vocational Expert. The Court also found troubling
the ALJ's dismissal of an examining opinion merely
because Plaintiff's attorney had arranged for the
evaluation. Mr. Dillon was represented by
Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with assistance from Kim
Jones and Suzanne Blaz.
posted 5/9/2008
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
April 28, 2008:
Court prevents review of doctor's report.
Click on the
link to read the article.
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's 50th annual Law Day issue on April
26, 2008:
The year in employee benefits.
Click on the
link to read the article.
posted 4/28/2008
Hill v. Astrue,
No. 07-C-200 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 16, 2008).
The Court
issued a remand in this case because the ALJ's
conclusion that Ms. Hill could perform light work is not
supported by substantial evidence, the determination as
to the height and length of her elevation of her foot
was unsupported, the ALJ's reasons for finding Ms. Hill
not credible are contrary to SSR 96-7p and unpersuasive
and the ALJ failed to follow SSR 00-4p. Ms. Hill
was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with
assistance from Suzanne Blaz.
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
April 14, 2008:
Court finds conflict in insurer, reviewer relationship.
Click on the
link to read the article.
On Thursday, May 15, 2008, Frederick J. Daley
presented with Barry Schultz a talk about recent Federal
Court Social Security cases at the Chicago Bar
Association's Social Security disability law meeting.
White v.
Astrue, No. 06-C-5610 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10,
2008). The Court
issued a remand in this case because the ALJ failed to
follow the Appeals Council's remand instructions, failed
to follow SSR 96-7p and make a proper credibility
determination, improperly dismissed Mr. White's memory
problems and erroneously found him capable of performing
past work despite numerous conflicts between the jobs'
demands and his RFC opinion. Mr. White was
represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with
assistance from Kate Hoppe and Suzanne Blaz.
posted 4/16/2008
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
March 31, 2008:
Struggle over 'mental illness' exclusions.
Click on the
link to read the article.
posted 4/1/2008
Juszynski
v. LINA, No. 06-C-5503 (N.D. Ill. Mar.
28, 2008). The
Court granted summary judgment
in this case noting that the totality of the evidence
favored continuation, not termination, of Mr.
Juszynski's LTD benefits and that LINA selectively
reviewed the evidence when it chose to terminate
benefits by disregarding consistent and largely
uncontradicted treatment records. Mr.
Juszynski was represented by Mark DeBofsky.
posted 3/31/2008
Maki v.
Astrue, No. 2:07-C-282 (E.D. Wisc. Mar.
18, 2008). The
Court issued a remand in this
case because the ALJ: erroneously found the
treating doctor’s assessment inconsistent with Ms.
Maki’s work activity; erroneously held attempting to
work against Ms. Maki when her attempt to work only
further supports her allegations of disability; failed
to properly discuss, assess and weigh all of the medical
evidence as instructed by the Appeals Council; failed to
adequately consider whether Ms. Maki met or equaled
Listing 1.04A; did not follow the requirements of the
Appeals Council regarding assessing Ms. Maki’s mental
impairments; failed to trace a path from the evidence to
the RFC conclusions, failing to make a proper RFC
determination pursuant to SSR 96-8p; failed to provide
the frequency of Ms. Maki’s sit-stand option as required
by SSR 96-9p; and failed to meet his burden at step five
of the sequential evaluation. Ms. Maki was represented
by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with assistance from
Suzanne Blaz.
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
March 17, 2008:
Court Nixes Insurer Offset for Dependent SSA Benefits.
Click on the
link to read the article.
posted 3/18/2008
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
March 3, 2008:
Rulings uphold State power over review clauses.
Click on the
link to read the article.
posted 3/3/2008
Paska v. Astrue,
No. 07-C-3447 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2008).
The Court issued a remand in
this case because the ALJ:
erred by ignoring medical evidence and GAF scores
suggestive of greater mental limitations, thus, failing
to comply with the requirement that she fully and fairly
evaluate all of the medical evidence in the record and
adversely affecting the credibility determination;
inappropriately held Plaintiff’s going out for
disability related appointments and obtaining help from
his friends against his allegations of disabling mental
limitations; failed to properly build a bridge
from the evidence to his findings; and erroneously made
hypotheticals without relying on any medical opinion or
report. Mr. Paska was represented by
Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with assistance from Suzanne
Blaz.
The following article by
Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law
Bulletin's Workplace Issues section on
February 11, 2008:
A Painful Burden For Disability Claimants.
Click on the
link to read the ar |