Horn & Kelley represent claimants in Social Security Disability proceedings at all levels, from application through reconsideration, ALJ hearing, Appeals Council review, U.S. District Court, U.S. Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court.  We represent claimants primarily in Chicagoland and Northwest Indiana but have also represented claimants in Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Last year Horn & Kelley had more cases published in the Forum of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives (where last year’s important social security disability cases are published) than any other lawyers in the country.

If you need help with a social security disability claim, please do not hesitate to call 888-921-5297 or 877-614-8861.  Unlike altogether too many others in this field, we do not routinely bail out on clients after an unfavorable ALJ decision.  Similarly, our clients are accompanied at ALJ hearings by attorneys with more than 30 years of experience each–clients are not passed off at this critical stage to recent law school graduates or paralegals.

On May 3, 2013, Horn & Kelley, PC, national leaders in Social Security Disability Law, prevailed upon the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to remand for an award of benefits in Hamilton v. Colvin, 12-3085.  The mandate issued on July 15, 2013.  Neither the medical nor non-medical evidence in the record supported the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)’s finding that Plaintiff-Appellant exaggerated her limitations.  The ALJ’s credibility finding was improper because the ALJ misrepresented the Plaintiff-Appellant’s testimony as inconsistent.  Plaintiff-Appellant did not contradict herself.

Do you have a social security disability case at a hearing office in Carbondale, Danville, Evanston, Oak Brook, or Peoria, Illinois?  Evansville, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, or Valparaiso, Indiana? Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Livonia, Mount Pleasant, or Oak Park, Michigan? Your case could be heard in Orland Park, Illinois, near the office of Horn & Kelley, PC, Attorneys at Law, national leaders in Social Security Disability Law.  Call Horn & Kelley today at 888-921-5297 or 877-614-8861.

Horn & Kelley, national leaders in social security disability law, won on June 19 a district court remand in Webster v. Colvin, 12 C 3513.  The District Court reversed and remanded for a new hearing because the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in assessing Plaintiff’s credibility, primarily because the ALJ failed to explain the reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s claims of limitations from pain.  The ALJ did not say what weight she gave to Plaintiff’s testimony.  The ALJ stated both that Plaintiff was and was not referred to a pain clinic when in fact Plaintiff was.  The ALJ stated that Plaintiff’s treatment had not changed when in fact it had.  The ALJ improperly rejected Plaintiff’s testimony about pain because there were no restrictions in the file from a treating physician when Plaintiff could not afford a treating physician.  The ALJ failed to address Plaintiff’s combination of impairments.  The ALJ improperly relied on Plaintiff’s minimal activities of daily living to discredit her.

John E. Horn of Horn & Kelley, PC, Attorneys at Law, national leaders in social security disability law who concentrate their practice in Chicagoland and Northwest Indiana, won a fully favorable post-remand Administrative Law Judge decision June 24, 2013, because their client equaled listing 13.19 for liver cancer.

Claimant had appeared unrepresented at his first hearing and was denied October 5, 2011.  He retained Horn & Kelley, who submitted new and material evidence to the Appeals Council. The medical evidence in claimant’s file indicated that in August, 2010, he had been found to have a hepatic lesion suspicious for hepatocellular carcinoma. The new and material evidence showed that on a follow-up visit on April 13, 2011, claimant was diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma demonstrated by CT scan.  The Appeals Council reversed and remanded Nov. 27, 2012.

At the hearing on remand, a Medical Expert testified that claimant has hepatocellular carcinoma demonstrated by CT scan and high AFP protein, and that listing 13.19 was equaled July 30, 2010.  The Administrative Law Judge granted the claim as of that date.

Horn & Kelley can win your case at any level, but the earlier you retain them the better!  Do not wait until you have lost your claim before you contact Horn & Kelley.  They have represented clients in social security disability claims in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.

John E. Horn of Horn & Kelley, national leaders in social security disability law who concentrate their practice in Chicagoland and Northwest Indiana, won a Northern District of Illinois Court remand July 1, 2013, for a new hearing in Murray v. Astrue, 10 C 7561.

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)’s questions to the Vocational Expert at the hearing did not include any reference to mental limitations.  The ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered moderate difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence or pace.  The Commissioner argued that the ALJ properly accounted for this limitation by limiting Plaintiff to unskilled work.  The Court rejected the Commissioner’s argument, holding that a limitation to unskilled work is no substitute for an assessment of the ability to maintain concentration, persistence and pace.  The matter is remanded to the agency for further proceedings.

Horn & Kelley can win your case at any level, but the earlier you retain us the better!  We have represented clients in social security disability claims in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.

John E. Horn of Horn & Kelley, PC, Attorneys at Law won the accompanying fully favorable Administrative Law Judge decision of Feb. 3, 2013. The Administrative Law Judge found that listing 5.05B was equaled because the medical expert at the hearing testified that claimant’s chronic liver disease equaled the severity contemplated by Paragraph B of section 5.05. Claimant’s cirrhosis and ascites improved since he discontinued excessive daily alcohol use, but he continues to experience weakness and esophageal varices, and he has cysts and lesions in the liver, as well as fatigue and malaise.

Horn & Kelley recently prevailed in an Appeals Council remand for our claimant. The Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision did not adequately assess the claimant’s mental residual functional capacity (“RFC”) because there was no discussion of the work-related functions related to deficiencies in social functioning. The ALJ who found claimant’s physical RFC to be “medium” on the basis of the Medical Expert’s (“ME”) testimony during direct examination failed to consider the ME’s testimony during cross-examination that the RFC should be automatically dropped to “light” because of the claimant’s knee impairments. The claimant will be scheduled for a new hearing.

John E. Horn of Horn & Kelley, PC, Attorneys at Law won the accompanying Appeals Council remand of Dec. 31, 2012. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge found that claimant’s only mental limitations were moderate in the abilities to understand, remember, and carry out detailed instructions; maintain concentration and attention for extended periods; and interact properly with the general public. The Appeals Council found that the term “moderate” is not specific enough to provide a function by function analysis in accordance with Social Security Ruling 96-8p. It was determined that nonspecific qualifying terms (e.g. moderate, moderately severe, and marked) should not be utilized since they do not describe function, nor do they usefully convey the extent of the claimant’s limitations.

As published in Volume 34, No. 11, November 2012 edition of the Social Security Forum of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives (NOSSCR).

The Federal district court remanded under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) for consideration of new and material evidence. The plaintiff had back surgery less than four months after the date of the ALJ’s decision. The Commissioner argued that the evidence was not material because it was evidence of new symptoms or a worsening of the condition and thus did not relate to the period before the date of the ALJ’s decision, warranting a new application. The court disagreed: “Because the surgery appears to closely relate to the treatment plaintiff was receiving prior to the ALJ’s decision, we find that is new and material objective evidence that is related to the plaintiff’s original DIB application. Therefore, the ALJ should consider this new and material evidence on remand.” The plaintiff was represented by John E. Horn, of Horn & Kelley, PC Attorneys at Law.