Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Loveless, age 56, applied for Disability Insurance Benefits claiming that he could not work because of a shoulder impairment, diabetes, and pancreatitis. An Administrative Law Judge concluded, however, that Loveless could perform light work with restrictions. The Appeals Council and the district court upheld that determination. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the ALJ erred by minimizing the opinion of Loveless’s personal physician and disbelieving his own testimony about the limiting effects of his impairments. The adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. View "Loveless v. Colvin" on Justia Law

In 2011, Bogina sued under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729, seeking compensation for exposing fraud allegedly perpetrated against the federal government and several state governments. Defendants included a major supplier of medical equipment to institutions reimbursed by Medicare and other federal programs and its customer, a chain of nursing homes. The district judge dismissed the federal claims as being too similar to those in a prior suit and relinquished jurisdiction over the state claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding differences between this suit and an earlier suit “unimpressive” and stating that it did not matter that the alleged fraud continued. View "Bogina v. Medline Indus., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff applied for disability benefits, listing eight impairments. The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff’s application and did so again on reconsideration. The next year, Plaintiff testified before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ disbelieved Plaintiff’s testimony that she could not sit, stand, or walk for extended periods of time and denied Plaintiff’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s adverse credibility finding on appeal. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the ALJ’s analysis was flawed in several respects, and the ALJ’s mistakes in evaluating Plaintiff’s credibility were not harmless. Remanded. View "Hill v. Colvin" on Justia Law

The Centralia state-operated developmental center, one of seven Illinois SODCs, houses approximately 200 severely disabled individuals, some having the mentality of an infant or toddler. Many also have serious aggressive, or self-destructive behavioral disorders. The seven SODCs have, in total, about 1800 residents, while about 10,000 people with severe developmental disabilities live in community-based facilities: houses or apartments in residential settings that accommodate one to eight residents. The state agency provides services (such as housing and medical care) to approximately 25,000 developmentally disabled persons. Another 23,000 or so are on a waiting list; 6000 are considered to be in emergency situations. Since 2012 Illinois has been trying to shift SODC residents to community-based facilities, in accordance with a national trend: community-based facilities are cheaper than SODCs and there is evidence that even persons who are severely disabled mentally or behaviorally or both do better in community-based facilities. A suit, on behalf of the Centralia SODC residents, alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction to prevent assessment and transfer of those residents, reasoning that the urgency required for emergency relief had not been shown. View "Ill. League of Advocates for Developmentally Disabled v. Ill. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

Alaura, age 22, was struck in the back of his head by an assailant wielding a bar stool. The blow shattered his skull, necessitating emergency surgery to remove part of his brain and place a metal plate in his skull. During this craniotomy Alaura had a seizure. Alaura has repeatedly seen neurologists, complaining of headaches, dizziness, and confusion, and has been diagnosed with post-traumatic headaches, cognitive impairment, and occipital neuralgia, an injury to or inflammation of nerves that run from the spinal cord at the base of the neck up through the scalp. It causes piercing or throbbing pain in the neck, the back of the head, and the front of the head behind the eyes. A year later, Alaura still complained of daily headaches, “absence-type” seizures several times a week, and back and neck pain. The Seventh Circuit reversed denial of Alaura’s claim for social security disability benefits as premature, stating that the “long list” of severe impairments “don’t sound like trivial obstacles to being able to hold full-time employment.” The administrative law judge’s explanations were “thin,” he made no effort to consider the combined effects on Alaura’s ability to work of all his impairments and limitations. View "Alaura v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Stepp, a former correctional officer, training secretary and coordinator, and parole probation officer, applied for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 401. Stepp was 47 years old, 5’6” tall, and weighed 237 pounds. She primarily claimed degenerative disc disease and depression. An ALJ denied Stepp’s claim, acknowledging that Stepp suffered from chronic pain, but finding that surgery, medication, and therapy had resulted in improvement such that she retained the capacity to engage in sedentary work. Stepp submitted to the Appeals Council additional evidence in the form of medical records created just before the ALJ’s denial of her claim. This evidence, the treatment notes of pain management specialist Dr. MacKay, tends to suggest that Stepp’s condition did not improve over the course of the adjudicative period to the extent that the ALJ estimated. The Appeals Council declined to engage in plenary review and did not address Dr. MacKay’s notes. The district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit remanded, finding that the ALJ properly analyzed a range of conflicting testimony and medical opinions and reached a conclusion adequately supported by the record, but that the Council erred in not accepting Dr. MacKay’s treatment notes as new and material evidence. View "Stepp v. Carolyn Colvin" on Justia Law

Stepp, a former correctional officer, training secretary and coordinator, and parole probation officer, applied for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 401. Stepp was 47 years old, 5’6” tall, and weighed 237 pounds. She primarily claimed degenerative disc disease and depression. An ALJ denied Stepp’s claim, acknowledging that Stepp suffered from chronic pain, but finding that surgery, medication, and therapy had resulted in improvement such that she retained the capacity to engage in sedentary work. Stepp submitted to the Appeals Council additional evidence in the form of medical records created just before the ALJ’s denial of her claim. This evidence, the treatment notes of pain management specialist Dr. MacKay, tends to suggest that Stepp’s condition did not improve over the course of the adjudicative period to the extent that the ALJ estimated. The Appeals Council declined to engage in plenary review and did not address Dr. MacKay’s notes. The district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit remanded, finding that the ALJ properly analyzed a range of conflicting testimony and medical opinions and reached a conclusion adequately supported by the record, but that the Council erred in not accepting Dr. MacKay’s treatment notes as new and material evidence. View "Stepp v. Carolyn Colvin" on Justia Law

Price, an almost illiterate, mentally retarded 44-year-old who also suffers from psychiatric ailments, intermittently received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, having been adjudged disabled in 1988, 1991, and 2007. His benefits should have been terminated in 2005 because he was sent to prison for a felony sex offense, but the record is unclear as to when benefits stopped. Paroled in 2010, he unsuccessfully applied for the same benefits that he had received before he entered prison. After reviewing the history of Price’s mental problems, his inability to function in society, doctor’s assessments, his nocturnal habits, and test scores, the Seventh Circuit remanded, finding the administrative law judge’s reasons for finding that Price was not disabled “unconvincing.” As is common in social security disability proceedings, the administrative law judge inferred from Price’s ability to perform simple household chores, such as cooking food in a microwave oven and mowing the lawn, that he could be gainfully employed, but “it’s easier—especially for someone with an antisocial psychiatric disorder—to work in one’s own home, at one’s own pace, at one’s own choice of tasks, than to work by the clock under supervision in a place of business.” View "Price v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Varga, now 42, had a 1994 medical discharge from the military because of severe endometriosis (a condition which causes pelvic pain). She then worked as a correctional officer, and later an office worker, at the Federal Correctional Institute (FCI) in Oxford, Wisconsin. She left the FCI in 2005 because of her continuing physical and mental impairments and has not worked since March 2006, when her application for disability retirement under the Federal Employees Retirement System was approved. She applied for disability insurance benefits in 2006, alleging she had been disabled since 2005. Between 2005 and 2011, Varga was diagnosed with: PTSD, endometriosis, major depression, irritable bowel syndrome, and fibromyalgia. An Administrative Law Judge denied her application. The district court, affirmed. The Seventh Circuit reversed, agreeing that the ALJ erred by failing to include her mental limitations in the areas of concentration, persistence, and pace in the hypothetical question that he posed to the vocational expert. The flawed hypothetical led the vocational expert and the ALJ to erroneously conclude she was not disabled. View "Varga v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, residents of privately-owned Chicago building, received housing vouchers from the Chicago Housing Authority to enable them to rent apartments. They claimed that the Authority is complicit in and responsible for a deprivation of their constitutionally protected privacy by the building owners. The owners require their tenants to be tested annually for illegal drugs; passing the test is a condition of a tenant’s being allowed to renew his or her lease for another year. The requirement applies to all tenants, not just those who might be suspected of using illegal drugs. The district court denied a preliminary injunction on the ground that the drug-testing policy was private rather than state action. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. None of the plaintiffs had requested transfer from the drug-testing building in which he or she currently resides to a building that does not require drug testing. A CHA representative testified that his agency would have approved such a request. That the CHA may encourage or even request testing does not constitute state action. View "Stubenfield v. Chicago Hous. Auth." on Justia Law