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.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.