Friday, December 04, 2015
Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decided one Indiana case yesterday, re SSA
In Anne Hill v. Carolyn Colvin, a 20-page opinion including a Posner concurrence beginning on p. 15, Judge Williams writes:
An administrative law judge disbelieved Anne Hill’s testimony that she could not sit, stand, or walk for extended periods of time and denied her application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. In this action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Hill challenges this adverse credibility finding as well as the ALJ’s assessment of her residual functional capacity. We agree with Hill that the ALJ’s credibility analysis was flawed and remand the case to the agency for further proceedings. * * *
POSNER, Circuit Judge, concurring. I join Judge Williams’s majority opinion without reservations. I write separately only to focus attention on what seems to me a persistent, serious, and often ignored deficiency in opinions by the administrative law judges of the Social Security Administration denying social security disability benefits (or, what is similar, supplemental security income). The deficiency concerns testimony by vocational experts employed by the Administration concerning the number and types of jobs that an applicant deemed not to be totally disabled could perform, and the evaluation of that testimony by administrative law judges. This deficiency has recently been attracting critical attention.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 4, 2015 10:04 AM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions