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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT