ILNews

Man not entitled to disability benefits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was sympathetic to a man’s medical condition but affirmed the decision by an administrative law judge that he’s not disabled is supported by the evidence.

Bradley M. Shideler has osteogenesis imperfecta, or “brittle bone disease.” He applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits in 2006, alleging a disability onset date of June 30, 1995. His last date of being insured was March 31, 2000.

At a hearing, he testified that his back pain was a constant “10 out of 10” and was limited in what household chores he could do. He said he couldn’t stand or walk for very long and had to frequently lie down. He previously worked as a carpet cleaner in 1997 and as a rental consultant for three years. In 1999, he was injured while riding his motorcycle and had to have knee surgery. He claimed to have broken 55 bones over the years, but his medical records only supported a handful of surgeries.

A vocational expert testified that based on most of Shideler’s physical restrictions, he could work as a credit clerk, order clerk, or telephone clerk. When the ALJ gave the vocational expert a very specific list of restrictions, including a person who couldn’t work a full eight hours without needing additional breaks, the vocational expert said there would be no jobs available under those restrictions.

A state physician completed a residual functional capacity assessment of Shideler, which in that doctor’s opinion found he could perform medium work and could even occasionally climb ladders.

The ALJ denied Shideler’s application; the Appeals Council denied his request for review. The District Court also upheld the decision. He challenged the ALJ’s conclusion that he was not disabled prior to March 31, 2000, claiming her findings weren’t supported by the evidence.

The 7th Circuit found the ALJ’s reasons for finding Shideler’s testimony to not be fully credible are sound and not “patently wrong.” Whatever Shideler’s current condition is, the ALJ’s decision finding that he was not disabled as of March 2000 is supported by substantial evidence, the judges held. The appellate court sympathized with Shideler, but his condition didn’t rise to the level of a disability prior to his date last insured.

 

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT