Jelinek v. Astrue
662 F.3d 805
7th Cir.2011Background
- Jelinek was a minor when her mother filed for supplemental security income on her behalf before the eighteenth birthday.
- ALJ initially denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review; district court upheld the decision.
- Treating psychiatrist Dr. Radzeviciene issued January 2008 opinion on Jelinek’s functional limitations.
- State-agency psychologists (Dr. Heroldt and Dr. Kladder) had earlier opinions that did not fully support rejecting Radzeviciene.
- ALJ found no disability under the child standard before age 18 and under the adult standard after age 18, relying on limited linkages between activities and impairments.
- Court reverses and remands for further proceedings to properly weigh medical opinions and credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed the treating source opinion | Jelinek | Astrue | Remand for proper weighing of Radzeviciene's opinion |
| Whether listing 12.04 findings were properly evaluated | Jelinek | Astrue | Remand to determine if Listing 12.04 was met or equaled before 18 or after |
| Whether the VE was given an accurate RFC | Jelinek | Astrue | Remand to include comprehensive hypotheticals reflecting limitations, including concentration/persistence/pace |
| Whether credibility analysis was proper | Jelinek | Astrue | Remand to reassess credibility without solely attributing symptoms to medication non-compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Spiva v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2010) (ALJ must articulate reasons; rely on articulated evidence)
- Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2010) (weight of treating opinions; need logical bridge)
- Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2011) (treating-source opinion deserves careful analysis)
- Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2007) (rejecting treating-physician opinion requires explanation)