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