Archives

Archives: 3/6/2006 – 5/17/2006


The following article by Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin‘s Workplace Issues section on May 30, 2006: Attorney’s fees not enough to deter bad denials Click on the link to read the article.

posted 5/30/2006


Boyd v. Barnhart, No. 05-1813 (7th Cir. May 25, 2006). The Seventh Circuit  issued a remand in this EAJA case because the Commissioner was not substantially justified in defending the ALJ’s decision as it failed to follow legal precedent and the Commissioner’s own ruling, SSR 96-7p.  Mr. Boyd was represented by Marcie Goldbloom.

posted 5/25/2006


Greenwood v. Barnhart, No. 05-cv-5707 (N.D. IL May 18, 2006). The Court  issued a remand in this case because: the ALJ’s RFC finding was erroneous and failed to follow SSR 96-8p; and the ALJ’s hypotheticals to the VE were incomplete .  Mr. Greenwood was represented by Frederick J. Daley with assistance from law clerks Kate Hoppe and Suzanne Blaz.

posted 5/19/2006


Haran v. Barnhart, No. 05-cv-3202 (N.D. IL May 16, 2006). The Court  issued a remand in this case because: the ALJ’s determination of Ms. Haran’s RFC without the use of an ME was an error as she failed to follow SSR 83-20, which requires that an ME be obtained in order to infer an onset date; the ALJ failed to follow SSR 82-62 and failed to properly evaluate her ability to perform her past relevant work; the hypotheticals posed to the VE were incomplete; and the ALJ failed to follow SSR 96-7p, improperly considered Ms. Haran’s application for unemployment benefits in her credibility determination, and failed to make an appropriate credibility finding.  Ms. Haran was represented by Frederick J. Daley with assistance from attorney Barbara Borowski and law clerk Suzanne Blaz.

Part two of the article published in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin‘s Workplace Issues section on Monday was printed on May 16, 2006, and is titled Benefit payment decisions should not be left up to the Insurers. Click on the link to read the article.

The following article by Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin‘s Workplace Issues section on May 15, 2006: Conflicted over conflicts of interest Click on the link to read the article.

posted 5/17/2006


Jakel-Taylor v. Barnhart, No.  2:05-cv-2 (N.D. IN May 9, 2006). The Court  issued an outright reversal in this case.  The Court ordered the Social Security Administration to award Ms. Jakel-Taylor benefits because the evidence in the record supported a finding that she was disabled.  Additionally, the Court noted that the ALJ disregarded the AC remand Order, failed to properly determine Ms. Jakel-Taylor’s credibility, failed to follow SSR 00-4p and resolve inconsistencies between the VE’s testimony and the DOT, substituted his own lay opinion for medical evidence, and failed to give the consistent treating evidence appropriate weight.  Ms. Jakel-Taylor was represented by Frederick J. Daley with assistance from attorney Barbara Borowski.

Mark DeBofsky spoke about Remedies at the 20th National Institute on ERISA Basics conference on May 12, 2006, at the Drake Hotel in Chicago, Illinois.

posted 5/12/2006


Matthews v. Barnhart, No. 2:05-cv-91 (N.D. IN May 3, 2006). This case was remanded pursuant to sentence four because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Mr. Matthews’ mental impairments and perform an MRFC.  Mr. Matthews was represented by Frederick J. Daley with assistance from law clerk Suzanne Blaz.

posted 5/3/2006


The followingarticle by Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin‘s Workplace Issues section on May 1, 2006: Case shows it’s not ‘all or none’ for disability Click on the link to read the article.

posted 5/1/2006


DALEY, DEBOFSKY & BRYANT SEEKING U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEW of Semien v. Life Insurance Company of North America

Daley, DeBofsky & Bryant has sought Supreme Court review of the decision rendered in Semien v. Life Insurance Company of North America.  Attached is a copy of the petition filed with the Court on April 28, 2006.

Keys v. Barnhart, No. 04-cv-6403 (N.D. IL April 25, 2006). This case was remanded pursuant to sentence four because: the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Mr. Keys’ mental impairments and perform an MRFC,  the ALJ failed to consider the evidence in its entirety, and because the ALJ failed to comply with SSR 96-8p.  Mr. Keys was represented by Frederick J. Daley with assistance from Heather Aloe. posted 4/28/2006

Huichan v. Barnhart, No. 05-cv-268 (W.D. WI April 21, 2006). The Court  adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and remanded this case pursuant to sentence four. The Magistrate Report finds remand necessary because the ALJ failed to consider a treating physician MRFC.  Mr. Huichan was represented by Frederick J. Daley with assistance from attorney Violet Borowski and law clerk Suzanne Blaz. posted 4/28/2006

Evans v. Barnhart, No. 1:04-cv-7841 (N.D. IL April 12, 2006). The Court  adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and remanded this case pursuant to sentence four. Ms. Evans was represented by Marcie E. Goldbloom with assistance from law clerk Suzanne Blaz.

Bus v. Barnhart, No. 05-C-6023 (N.D. IL April 10, 2006). 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. Bus was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with assistance from  law clerk Suzanne Blaz.

posted 4/28/2006


Speciale v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Assoc., No. 04-cv-5390 (N.D. IL March 31, 2006). The court found that the Plan Administrator’s denial of Ms. Speciale’s appeal was “downright unreasonable,” awarded her summary judgment, and ordered payment of past-due and future LTD benefits.  Ms. Speciale was represented by Marcie E. Goldbloom.

posted 4/6/2006


Cassell v. Barnhart, No. 04-cv-7707 (N.D. IL March 24, 2006). This case was remanded pursuant to sentence four because: the ALJ erred in calling upon a clinical psychologist as the ME to testify about an asthmatic impairment; the ME’s testimony could not provide substantial evidence for the ALJ’s decision; the ALJ erred in basing certain disability findings on his own interpretation of the medical evidence; the ALJ lacked an informed basis to conclude that Plaintiff’s treatment was either “conservative” or “ha[d] been generally successful in controlling the symptoms”; and the testimony of a medical expert was necessary to provide that informed basis. Additionally, the ALJ failed to address key evidence including the diagnoses of Mr. Cassell’s treating physicians and his results on a pulmonary function test in denying Mr. Cassell’s disability claim. Mr. Cassell was represented by Frederick J. Daley with assistance from law clerk Suzanne Blaz.

The following article by Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin‘s Workplace Issues section on April 3, 2006: Court tackles ‘church plan,’ ‘self-reporting’ case Click on the link to read the article.

posted 4/4/2006


Troutman v. Barnhart, No. 2:04-cv-00530 (N.D. IN March 23, 2006). This case was remanded pursuant to sentence four because the ALJ’s credibility determination was erroneous and because the ALJ failed to address Plaintiff’s drowsiness, confusion, and nap necessity as a result of her medications.  Ms. Troutman was represented by Frederick J. Daley.

Smith v. Barnhart, No. 05-C-0026-C (W.D. Wisc. March 23, 2006). The government declined to brief the case, but instead agreed to a voluntary remand for further VE testimony.  This occurred after the case had been briefed for the Seventh Circuit by Daley, DeBofsky and Bryant.  Mr. Smith was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with assistance from attorney Barbara Borowski.

Krutsinger v. Barnhart, No.  05-2019 (C.D. IL March 15, 2006). The Court  adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and remanded this case pursuant to sentence four.  Ms. Krutsinger was represented by David A. Bryant with assistance from law clerk Suzanne Blaz.

posted 3/24/2006


An article by Mark DeBofsky, The Disability Insurance Industry’s Attack on California’s Consumer Protection Initiative, recently appeared in the The Insurance Forum, Vol. 33, Nos. 2 & 3, 16 (February/March 2006).

The following article by Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin‘s Workplace Issues section on March 20, 2006: Court to quick to allow in report. Click on the link to read the article.

posted 3/21/2006


Krahn v. Barnhart, No. 2:05-cv-00106 (N.D. IN March 2, 2006). This case was remanded pursuant to sentence four because the ALJ made an improper credibility determination at Step Four.  Additionally, the Court noted that this case was strikingly similar to that of Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d. 750, (7th Cir. 2004) stating that it was improper for the ALJ to ignore evidence of an impairment, to ignore symptoms consistent with the diagnosis of that impairment, and to fail to even inquire after certain symptoms, including dizziness and tremors, at the hearing.  Mr. Krahn was represented by Frederick J. Daley with assistance from law clerk Suzanne Blaz.

posted 3/6/2006


Notice: Neither by accessing this site or by reviewing its contents has an attorney-client relationship been formed or established; and nothing contained in this site shall constitute the giving or rendering of legal advice or be construed as a legal opinion, or guarantee of a particular resolution of a legal problem. This information is provided as a public service, and is not intended to be a substitute for competent legal counsel. The information provided is general in nature and may not apply to your circumstances, particularly if you are not in the State of Illinois. Under no circumstances should you make legal decisions solely based upon the information provided on this web site. You should consult an attorney before making any important decision involving a legal matter.
Copyright 2005 Daley, DeBofsky & Bryant.