Social Security Disability Benefits-Harmless Error

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Dimitrios Liapis v. Frank Bisignano

Case No.: 24-3170

Officials: Easterbrook, Lee, and Maldonado, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Social Security Disability Benefits-Harmless Error

The Liapis, who has a history of bipolar disorder, chronic orthopedic pain, and an ear injury, applied for disability benefits in July 2020, alleging that he had been unable to work since December 2019. Several consultative examiners evaluated his physical and mental impairments, and most concluded that he remained capable of performing routine, unskilled work. However, psychologist Dr. Pushkash opined that the plaintiff’s ability to concentrate, persist, and maintain pace was markedly impaired due to chronic pain and psychological symptoms, despite otherwise normal cognitive functioning.

After the Wisconsin disability agency denied the claim initially and upon reconsideration, the plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ determined that the plaintiff was not disabled and found Dr. Pushkash’s opinion generally unpersuasive, citing, among other reasons, that it was based on a single examination and included observations regarding the plaintiff’s physical pain. The Appeals Council denied review, rendering the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. The plaintiff then sought judicial review in the Western District of Wisconsin, which affirmed the ALJ’s decision, particularly the evaluation of Dr. Pushkash’s opinion.

The Seventh Circuit acknowledged that the ALJ committed several legal errors in evaluating Dr. Pushkash’s opinion, including failing to properly address the regulatory factors governing medical opinions and applying inconsistent reasoning across the medical evidence. Nevertheless, the court held that these errors were harmless because, even if Dr. Pushkash’s opinion were fully credited, the plaintiff still would not satisfy the regulatory requirements for disability. Specifically, he lacked the requisite number of marked or extreme limitations in the relevant areas of mental functioning.

Affirmed.

Decided 07/06/26

Full Text