ILNews

ALJ didn't inform vocational expert on the totality of claimant's limitations

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a District Court’s upholding of the Social Security Administration’s denial of a woman’s application for benefits because the Administrative Law Judge erred by not including her moderate limitation on concentration, persistence, and pace in the hypothetical he posed to a vocational expert.

Louquetta O’Connor-Spinner applied for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits in 2004. She suffers from depression, degenerative disc disease, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, sleep apnea, restrictive lung disease, and obesity. She claimed her impairments prevented her from working her past jobs as a deli clerk, nurse’s aide, shoe gluer, and fast-food worker, and that she couldn’t perform other jobs in the national economy.

She was examined by two psychologists. The SSA denied her claim, and ALJ found her not to be disabled. During her hearing, the ALJ asked William Cody, a vocational expert, whether a hypothetical worker with certain limitations could perform O’Connor-Spinner’s past jobs or other work in the national economy. None of the hypothetical situations posed by the ALJ included a limitation on concentration, persistence, and pace, which one of the psychologists noted O’Connor-Spinner had and it was caused by her depression. Cody found she couldn’t perform her past work but could find a job doing something else, such as a sedentary cashier. The District Court upheld the decision and later denied O’Connor-Spinner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment.

In Louquetta O’Connor-Spinner v. Michael Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, No. 09-4083, the 7th Circuit concluded that the ALJ’s hypothetical did not supply Cody with adequate information to determine whether O’Connor-Spinner could perform jobs in the national economy. The judges noted their previous cases have generally required the ALJ to orient the vocational expert to the totality of a claimant’s limitations, and must consider deficiencies of concentration, persistence, and pace, wrote Judge Kenneth Ripple. The judges haven’t insisted that this specific terminology be used in the hypothetical in all cases, such as when a VE is familiar with a claimant’s limitations by reviewing medical records or hearing testimony directly on those limitations.

There’s no evidence in the instant case that Cody reviewed O’Connor-Spinner’s medical history or heard testimony about the limitation. The judges also found it’s not clear whether the hypothetical, which included a restriction to repetitive tasks with simple instructions, would have caused Cody to eliminate positions that would pose significant barriers to someone with depression-related problems in concentration, persistence, and pace.

“…limiting a hypothetical to simple, repetitive work does not necessarily address deficiencies of concentration, persistence and pace,” wrote Judge Ripple. “We acknowledge that there may be instances where a lapse on the part of the ALJ in framing the hypothetical will not result in a remand. Yet, for most cases, the ALJ should refer expressly to limitations on concentration, persistence and pace in the hypothetical in order to focus the VE’s attention on these limitations and assure reviewing courts that the VE’s testimony constitutes substantial evidence of the jobs a claimant can do. In this case, a remand is required.”

The 7th Circuit also ordered the ALJ to clarify his position on whether and to what extent he considered O’Connor-Spinner’s difficulty in taking instructions and responding appropriately to supervisors.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT