33 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 1130, Chicago, IL 60602

6 Convenient Locations

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Youtube
Search

No attorney fee unless we win!

call us312-999-0999

Recent blog posts

IL disability attorneyWe have seen a number of Social Security disability cases here in Illinois recently where the government has failed to properly account for an applicant's limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace (CPP). As defined by Social Security's own regulations, CPP refers to a person's “ability to sustain focused attention sufficiently long to permit the timely completion of tasks commonly found in work settings.” If an applicant's mental health impairments limit their CPP to the point where they cannot reasonably function in any work setting, they are generally entitled to receive disability benefits.

Appeals Court: ALJ Improperly Ignored Answer to Hypothetical Question

In the most recent decision from the Chicago-based U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to address CPP limitations, Crump v. Saul, Social Security was once again faulted for its inadequate approach to this subject.

As described by the Court, the plaintiff in this case “has a long history of mental health impairments,” notably bipolar disorder. During a hearing before a Social Security administrative law judge (ALJ), the plaintiff “testified that she has 'too many thoughts at one time' and 'can't focus' on what she is supposed to be doing.” Despite acknowledging the plaintiff had “moderate” CPP limitations, however, the ALJ determined she did not meet the legal standard for disabled.

...

IL disability attorneyIn a recent post, we discussed a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held a vocational expert who testifies at a Social Security disability benefits hearing is not “categorically” required to disclose the actual data supporting their analysis. Some courts, including those here in Illinois, had previously enforced such a categorical rule. But under the Supreme Court's decision, Biestek v. Berryhill, Social Security administrative law judges (ALJs) have wide discretion to decide whether or not such data is relevant to a particular case.

Supreme Court Ruling Means Applicants Cannot Simply “Demand” Access to Data

The Chicago-based U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently applied Biestek to reject an unsuccessful disability applicant's request for a new hearing. The plaintiff in this case, Krell v. Saul, argued the ALJ erred by refusing to issue a subpoena to the vocational expert who testified at his disability hearing.

The plaintiff is a Wisconsin man who was previously employed as an ironworker. He filed for disability benefits due to a knee impairment. Prior to a 2014 hearing, the plaintiff's attorney asked the ALJ overseeing the case to issue a subpoena for “certain documents” upon which the vocational expert who was scheduled to testify “may rely” on in forming their opinions. The attorney explained such documents were necessary to facilitate the plaintiff's ability to properly cross-examine the expert.

...

IL disability attorneyA key part of any Social Security disability hearing occurs when an administrative law judge (ALJ) poses one or more “hypothetical questions” to a vocational expert. These questions are designed to help the ALJ determine what kind of jobs the applicant for disability benefits may still be able to perform in spite of their physical or mental impairments. The applicant has the right to cross-examine the VE regarding these hypothetical questions, as well as ask the ALJ to incorporate certain information when formulating the questions in the first place.

Seventh Circuit Rejects Disability Applicant's Appeal of Fourth Social Security Denial

But the mere fact an applicant disagrees with the ALJ's hypothetical question does not, in and of itself, mean the question was invalid. A recent decision from the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals here in Chicago, Saunders v. Saul, offers a helpful illustration of this point.

In this case, a Wisconsin man applied for Social Security disability benefits in 2005. Over the intervening 14 years, there have been at least four separate hearings on the plaintiff's application, all of which ended with an ALJ ruling he did not qualify as legally disabled.

...

You are not alone. Call us now for a FREE consultation 312-999-0999

Unable to travel to one of our offices? No problem! No office visit required.

dupage county bar association Chicago abr association nosscr Super Lawyer
Back to Top