Archives

Archives: 6/13/2006 – 7/27/2006


Davis-Crowder v. Barnhart, No. 05-7119 (N.D. IL July 26, 2006). The Court  issued a remand in this case because the ALJ: mischaractaerized Ms. Crowder’s asthma, and his finding of mild was not supported by substantial evidence; failed to recontact treating doctors to clarify whether her spasms were caused by hypocalcemia; failed to follow SSR 82-59 and allow Ms. Crowder to respond to allegations of non-compliance; failed to consider all of Ms. Crowder’s impairments when making his RFC, specifically her seizure disorder, thyroidectomy, hypocalcemia, and medication side-effects; failed to recontact a State agency CE; and because his Step Five decision relied on incomplete hypotheticals  Ms. Crowder was represented by Frederick J. Daley with assistance from attorney Barbara Borowski and law clerk Suzanne Blaz.

The following article by Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin‘s Workplace Issues section on July 24, 2006: Ruling gives benefits, but not lawyer fees. Click on the link to read the article.

Prochaska v. Barnhart, No. 05-3218 (7th Cir. July 24, 2006). The Seventh Circuit  issued a remand in this case because the ALJ failed to explore inconsistencies between the vocational expert’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.  Ms. Prochaska was represented by Frederick J. Daley with assistance from attorney Barbara Borowski.

posted 7/27/2006


Mark DeBofsky spoke at the 60th Annual ATLA conference, which took place in Seattle, Washington, on July 15-19, 2006.

Mendenhall v. Barnhart, No. 05-cv-2018 (C.D. IL July 20, 2006). The Court  issued a remand in this case adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation that the case should be remanded because the ALJ failed to make a proper RFC finding, his hypotheticals were flawed, his reasons for dismissing credibility were inadequate, and he failed to follow SSR 96-7p.  Mr. Mendenall was represented by David A. Bryant with assistance from law clerk Suzanne Blaz.

posted 7/21/2006


DALEY, DEBOFSKY & BRYANT SEEKING U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEW of Davis v. UNUM

Daley, DeBofsky & Bryant has sought Supreme Court review of the decision rendered in Davis v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of AmericaAttached is a copy of the petition filed with the Court on July 14, 2006.

Kangail  v. Barnhart, No. 05-3674 (7th Cir. July 14, 2006). The Seventh Circuit  issued a remand in this case because the ALJ erred by: rejecting medical evidence that showed that Ms. Kangail’s bipolar disorder continued despite being free from drugs; playing doctor and ignoring the fact that Ms. Kangail’s bipolar disorder precipitated her substance abuse, which occurred during her manic phases; attaching too much weight to Ms. Kangail’s job experiences after 2000, which were unsuccessful work attempts; and failing to consider the possibility that Ms. Kangail’s bipolar condition itself may have prevented her from taking her medications.  Ms. Kangail was represented by Frederick J. Daley with assistance from attorney Marcie Goldbloom.

posted 7/14/2006


DALEY, DEBOFSKY & BRYANT HAS MOVED!!!

DDB closed on June 30, 2006 and reopened on July 3, 2006 in their new office space located at 55 W. Monroe, Suite 2440, Chicago, Illinois 60603.

Patty v. Barnhart, No. 05-1369 (7th Cir. July 10, 2006). The Seventh Circuit  issued a remand in this case because the ALJ failed to include all of Ms. Patty’s mental limitations into the hypotheticals to the VE.  Ms. Patty was represented by Frederick J. Daley with assistance from attorney Violet Borowski.

posted 7/6/2006


Hernandez v. Barnhart, No. 05-cv-6471 (N.D. IL July 6, 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. Hernandez was represented by Frederick J. Daley, Jr. with assistance from  law clerks Suzanne Blaz and Benjeman Nichols.

The following article by Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin‘s Workplace Issues section on July 5, 2006: Court tries to end discretion debate. Click on the link to read the article.

Perry v. Barnhart, No. 05-cv-6863 (N.D. IL June 30, 2006). The Court  issued a remand in this case because the ALJ failed to address evidence from a a consultative psychiatric examiner and failed to properly determine the demands of his past work, contrary to SSR 82-61.  Mr. Perry was represented by Frederick J. Daley with assistance from attorney Violet Borowski and law clerk Suzanne Blaz.

posted 7/6/2006


Sutton v. Barnhart, No. 2:05-cv-1245 (E.D. WI June 19, 2006). The Court  issued a remand in this case because: the ALJ failed to discuss and consider Ms. Sutton’s fibromyalgia when making his RFC; failed to take into consideration the combination of her obesity with her other impairments; failed to evaluate Ms. Sutton’s credibility as required by SSR 96-7p; failed to adequately consider Ms. Sutton’s testimony regarding her mental limitations and impairments; and failed to resolve the conflict between the VE’s testimony and the DOT.  On remand, the Court instructed that the ALJ must reconsider Ms. Sutton’s physical and mental RFC in accordance with SSR 85-15 and SSR 96-8p, and then include all of the his findings into the hypotehtical to the VE.  Ms. Sutton 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 June 26, 2006: Remand Didn’t Help Where Plan Was At Fault. Click on the link to read the article.

Johnson v. Barnhart, No. 05-cv-4213 (N.D. IL June 16, 2006). The Court  issued a remand in this case because the ALJ erred in her determination of RFC and in her Step Four finding.  Mr. Johnson was represented by Frederick J. Daley with assistance from attorney Marcie Goldbloom.

posted 6/27/2006


Schwartz v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, No. 05-2727 (7th Cir. June 13, 2006). The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded a denial of long-term disability benefits under an ERISA plan where the district court should have reviewed the defendant’s denial de novo since language in the summary plan description was insufficient to confer discretion to determine benefits on defendant. Ms. Schwartz was represented by Marcie E. Goldbloom.

The following article by Mark DeBofsky appeared in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin‘s Workplace Issues section on June 12, 2006: Decision begins to explain problems with ERISA litigation. Click on the link to read the article.

posted 6/13/2006


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 2005-2006 Daley, DeBofsky & Bryant.