CASES OF NOTE:

McKinnie v. Barnhart, 368 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2004).  In this case, the 7th Circuit found that Social Security failed to make an inquiry into the reliability of the vocational expert's conclusions, improperly insisting that the claimant pay to substantiate expert testimony relied upon by the Commissioner.  This case is particularly helpful in showing what needs to be done in order to challenge VE testimony. Frederick J. Daley represented Mr. McKinnie on behalf of the firm. 

Diaz v. Prudential, No. 04-2342 (7th Cir. September 20, 2005). The Seventh Circuit remanded this case to the District Court for de novo review.  The Court held that plans without discretion require a de novo review while plans with discretion require a discretionary review.  The Court reasoned that the critical question was whether the plan gave the employee adequate notice that the plan administrator would make a judgment within the confines of pre-set standards, or if it has the latitude to shape the application, interpretation, and content of the rules in each case.  Mr. Diaz was represented by Mark DeBofsky.

Young v. Barnhart, No. 03-1545 (7th Cir. April 02, 2004). The court found the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment was flawed, as it failed to account for the evidence regarding disabaility claimant's problems accepting instruction, responding appropriately to criticism from supervisors, thinking independently, and setting realistic goals. Fred Daley represented Mr. Young on behalf of the firm, assisted by Steve Jackson and Suzanne Blaz.

MORE NEWS