ILNews

Court: ALJ's ruling had several errors

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding an administrative law judge's decision to deny a woman's claim for disability benefits contained several significant errors, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's affirmation of the denial and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration.

In Debi Villano v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, No. 08-2150, Debi Villano appealed the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. She claimed she was disabled permanently because she had arthritis in her knees and was obese. The Social Security Administration denied her claims, and the District Court upheld the administrative law judge's decision to deny her claims.

The ALJ performed a five-step analysis looking at how long it had been since Villano last worked, her impairments, and residual functioning capacity to determine she wasn't disabled.

But the ALJ erred when determining Villano's statements that she couldn't sit for six hours a day weren't credible because no medical evidence showed she couldn't. The ALJ failed to acknowledge Villano was obese, and this failure may impact the credibility determination, the Circuit judges determined in the per curium opinion. In addition, the ALJ couldn't discredit a claimant's testimony about pain and limitations solely because there is no objective medical evidence supporting it, the court continued.

The ALJ also erred in determining Villano's residual functioning capacity. The judge had to evaluate all limitations that arise from medically determinable impairments, even those that are not severe, and may not dismiss a line of evidence contrary to the ruling, wrote the court. The ALJ's cursory analysis doesn't give the 7th Circuit Court confidence he had appropriate reasons for rejecting the limitations Villano alleged.

In addition, he erred in determining Villano could perform a significant number of jobs and finding that Villano had acquired the transferable skill of "judgment." Other Circuit Courts have ruled that judgment isn't a skill, and the ALJ erred in concluding Villano had a generalized skill of judgment that was somehow transferable to new jobs in a different field. He also mistakenly ruled Villano could perform more than 15,000 jobs.

"In light of the other problems we have identified, we are not convinced that these errors are harmless," the court wrote.

On remand, the ALJ should give reasoned assessments of Villano's credibility, residual functioning capability, transferable skills, and ability to perform a significant number of jobs.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT