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 following article 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.
|