DDB BLOG now available, click here!

CASES OF NOTE: McKinnie v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2004), Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1003 (7th Cir. 2004) and Diaz v. Prudential, No. 04-2342 (7th Cir. September 20, 2005). Click here for discussion and links to decisions. 

U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEW

Daley, DeBofsky & Bryant sought Supreme Court review of the decision in Jewell v. Life Insurance Company of North America on February 19, 2008.  Please click on the case name for a copy of the petition for writ of certiorari. Also, on March 31, 2008, Mark DeBofsky, as counsel for United Policyholders, filed an Amicus Curiae Brief in MetLife v. Glenn.

DDB last sought Supreme Court review of  Semien v. Life Insurance Company of North America on April 28, 2006, and in Davis v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America on July 14, 2006; however, both cases were denied review on October 2, 2006.  Please click for the Semien Brief in Opposition, Reply Brief, and AARP Amicus Brief.  

Item of Interest: Milliman, Inc.'s Impact of Disability Insurance Policy Mandates Proposed by the California Department of Insurance dated 11/14/2005. 

ARTICLES & RECENT COURT DECISIONS:

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.  posted 4/28/2008

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 4/29/2008

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. posted 4/16/2008

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.  posted 4/14/2008

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 4/10/2008

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. posted 3/18/2008

PRESENTATIONS:  

On Thursday, May 15, 2008, Frederick J. Daley will be speaking along with Barry Schultz on recent Federal Court Social Security cases at the Chicago Bar Association's Social Security disability law meeting.

On Wednesday, May 21, 2008, Mark DeBofsky will be speaking 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.  For registration or more information, click here.

On Friday, June 6, 2008, Mark DeBofsky will be speaking about Subrogation and Reimbursement at the 22nd Annual National Institute on ERISA Basics, which is being held in Chicago, Illinois from June 4th through June 6th.  For more information on the conference, click here

                                                                                  MORE NEWS