Ct. of Appeals vacated ALJ’s denial of claimant’s 2004 application for Social Security disability benefits, where: (1) Ct. of Appeals had invalidated original 2006 denial of said application, after finding, in light of claimant’s several physical impairments that would limit her to only sedentary work, that ALJ had failed to ask vocational expert (with respect to claimant’s depression) to assess how claimant’s employment prospects would be affected by her moderate limitation on concentration, persistence and pace, and had improperly ignored psychologist’s opinion that claimant faced moderate limitation on her ability to accept instruction from supervisors. Instead of making said supplemental inquiries, another ALJ, in similarly denying instant application for benefits, found that claimant’s depression was not severe impairment. Ct. of Appeals, though, concluded that said finding was inconsistent with overwhelming medical evidence from treating doctor, who diagnosed claimant with “major depression, recurrent severe,” as well as opinions of other treating doctors, who consistently gave claimant GAF scores of between 50 to 55 based upon her depression. As such, remand was required for determination as to what limitations are caused by claimant’s major depression condition, and what effect said condition has on claimant’s employment prospects.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Social Security