United States Seventh Circuit

In a dispute involving plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the ALJ did not err in declining to place significant weight on plaintiff's doctor's findings regarding the intensity of plaintiff's impairments as the ALJ discerned and discussed the evidence and found that it failed to support the doctor's conclusions; 2) the ALJ's determination of plaintiff's credibility was not patently wrong as the judge properly considered plaintiff's subjective complaints and the evidence undermining the credibility of those complaints; 3) the ALJ's hypothetical questions to a vocational expert did not omit key facts and incorporated all of plaintiff's credible limitations; and 4) the court properly decided against remand where plaintiff's doctor's letter clarifying his prior opinion was not new and material evidence.

Appellate Information

• Argued 05/29/2008
• Decided 07/22/2009
• Published 07/22/2009

Judges

• TINDER, Circuit Judge., Before CUDAHY, POSNER, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Seventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Marcie E. Goldbloom, Attorney (argued), Daley, Debofsky & Bryant, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• James B. Geren, Attorney (argued), Social Security Administration, Office of the Regional Chief Counsel, Region V, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.