Case Explained: DIMITRIOS GEORGE LIAPIS v. FRANK BISIGNANO Commissioner of Social Security

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-06

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability benefits to Dimitrios Liapis. While the court acknowledged that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed multiple legal errors in rejecting the medical opinion of Dr. Mark Pushkash, it ruled these errors were harmless and did not warrant remand. The court applied the standard of review requiring reversal only if an ALJ’s decision lacks substantial evidence or involves an error of law. Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c, the court found the ALJ erred by failing to articulate reasons based on the two most critical factors for determining medical opinion persuasiveness: supportability and consistency. Instead, the ALJ relied on discretionary factors, such as the number of evaluations performed and the doctor’s specialization, while incorrectly dismissing Dr. Pushkash’s assessment that chronic pain could cause mental limitations. The court also noted the ALJ ignored evidence of aggressive psychiatric treatment and surgical interventions when characterizing Liapis’s symptom control as “good.” Despite these errors, the court concluded they were harmless because the record does not support a finding of disability even if Dr. Pushkash’s opinion had been accepted. Under Social Security regulations (20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1), a claimant is disabled only if they have “marked” limitations in two areas of mental functioning or an “extreme” limitation in one. The ALJ found Liapis had only moderate limitations in three areas and a mild limitation in another. Dr. Pushkash’s opinion suggested a marked limitation in only one area (concentration, persistence, or pace). Since the other four consultative examiners concluded Liapis could work with routine breaks, and a single marked limitation is insufficient for a disability finding under the regulations, the court determined with great confidence that a remand would result in the same outcome. Consequently, the denial of benefits stands.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.