Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Scott v. Barnhart
No. 01-3302 (7th Cir. July 22, 2002) ; Clearinghouse Number: 54833
Description
ALJ Failed to Articulate Adequately Reasons for Denying Child SSI Benefits, Necessitating Remand
Abstract
The Seventh Circuit has held that the administrative law judge
(ALJ) failed to articulate adequately the bases for his decision to
deny plaintiff supplemental security income (SSI) childhood
benefits. Plaintiff, a 12-year-old child, applied for SSI in 1994.
His application was denied initially and on reconsideration, and he
appealed. The ALJ concluded that plaintiff was not disabled within
the meaning of the Social Security Act. The district court
affirmed, and plaintiff appealed. The court of appeals held that
the ALJ failed to articulate adequately the bases for his
conclusions. In particular, the court found that the ALJ failed to
discuss the evidence in light of Listing 112.05’s analytical
framework, leaving the court with grave reservations as to whether
his factual assessment addressed adequately the criteria of the
listing. Furthermore, the court found that the ALJ’s failure
to discuss Listing 112.05 was compounded by the ALJ’s
perfunctory consideration and analysis of the evidentiary record.
Plaintiff had presented medical reports from two different groups
of psychologists indicating that he suffers from Developmental
Expressive and Receptive Language Disorder and that he operates at
the upper end of the mildly retarded range of intellectual
functioning. Plaintiff had also presented a report from a third
group of physicians concluding that he suffers from hyperactivity.
The court noted that, rather than providing a meaningful discussion
of these opinions and attempting to resolve the conflict, if any,
among these different diagnoses, the ALJ merely cited the exhibit
numbers and concluded that plaintiff has impairments of
hyperactivity with some language, speech, and cognitive delays.
Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court
and remanded to the agency for further proceedings.
