ILNews

Judges order another look at whether woman qualifies for disability

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has found that an administrative law judge failed to properly assess a woman’s residual functional capacity in deciding whether she qualified for disability insurance benefits from the Social Security Administration. The judges ordered the case back to the agency for further proceedings.

In Laenise Arnett v. Michael J. Astrue, commissioner of Social Security, No. 11-2424, Laenise Arnett appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits. Arnett applied for DIB in June 2004, claiming her onset date of June 14, 2002. She suffers from numerous physical and mental health issues, including obesity, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, and anxiety. She is able to stand for less than two hours a day and has trouble walking more than a few steps at a time.

When evaluating her residual functional capacity, the administrative law judge didn’t mention several of her physical and mental impairments and found that she could perform sedentary work that was limited to carrying up to 10 pounds occasionally, and less than 10 pounds frequently; sitting for six hours of an eight-hour day; walking for two hours of the eight-hour day; and alternating between sitting and standing throughout the day.

The 7th Circuit found problematic that the ALJ didn’t incorporate adequately Arnett’s mental impairments into the RFC and that he didn’t take into account several of Arnett’s diagnosed physical impairments or her obesity.  The judges agreed with Arnett that the ALJ failed to formulate a RFC that is sufficiently specific as to how often she must be able to sit and stand.

They remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT