Jeannine Tumminaro v. Michael Astru, 671 F.3d 629

Tumminaro underwent three back surgeries after two car incidents; later received relief from pain meds and injections.
She returned to full-time work in February 2008 (forklift driver and clerical work) while also performing occasional flagger duties.
The ALJ found disability from January 2004 to February 2008, concluding medical improvement and substantial gainful activity ended benefits.
Tumminaro contested the ALJ's failure to consider a trial work period and the adequacy of the medical-improvement finding.
The magistrate judge recommended affirming the ALJ, but Tumminaro appealed; district court adopted the recommendation.
The court now holds remand is required to address whether a trial work period applies and how it affects benefits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the ALJ correctly apply the trial work period rules?	Tumminaro contends the return to work in 2008 should be analyzed as a trial work period.	The Commissioner argues medical improvement occurred by February 2008 and the trial period is irrelevant.	Remand required to evaluate the trial period timing and effects.
Was medical improvement adequately supported by the record?	Tumminaro asserts the ALJ relied on return to work, not medical evidence, to claim improvement.	The Commissioner relies on medical improvement evidenced by symptoms and tests post-2004.	Remand needed to assess medical-improvement evidence beyond employment status.
Did Tumminaro waive appellate rights by not objecting to the magistrate's report?	Waiver should not apply because the magistrate did not warn about waiver consequences.	Waiver typically applies for failure to object, but not when warning is absent.	Waiver does not apply; appeal on magistrate’s conclusions permitted.
Should benefits have remained open during a trial work period and until nine months of service are completed?	The trial period shields disability status; benefits should continue unless nine months of service end it.	If nine months of service were completed, ending the trial, benefits may terminate if disabled status ends.	Record insufficient to determine end of trial period; remand required to compute service months.

Getch v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 2008) (limits review to ALJ rationale when Appeals Council declines review)
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (Supreme Court 1943) (A court should not relied on grounds not considered by agency)
Spiva v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2010) (jurisdictional review of ALJ decisions)
Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578 (2d Cir. 2002) (trial work period framework and medical-improvement standards)
Waters v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 2002) (trial work period concepts in disability determinations)
Johnson v. Apfel, 191 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 1999) (standards for medical-improvement analysis)
Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (interpretation of trial work period and service months)
Newton v. Chater, 92 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 1996) (nine-month trial period mechanics)
Delph v. Astrue, 538 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2008) (need for medical evidence supporting improvement)