Margaret J. Schneider
How Judge Schneider decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Social Security appeals she enforces the ALJ's 'logical bridge' / articulation duty and will reverse-and-remand when the ALJ ignores a line of contrary evidence, cherry-picks, or gives only a 'perfunctory' / 'barebones' listing analysis -- but she is even-handed and AFFIRMS when the ALJ's credibility finding is supported by specific evidence and is 'not patently wrong.' What persuades her is a decision that confronts the contrary evidence and explains the weight given to it; what loses is conclusory boilerplate.
“The ALJ's mere acknowledgement of Plaintiff's testimony and the characterization of the medical records in this case fails to build an accurate and logical bridge for excluding a leg elevation requirement. ... The ALJ may not cherry pick facts that support her conclusion and omit those that do not.”
A bare, two-sentence step-three listing conclusion will not survive: the ALJ must discuss the listing by name and offer more than a perfunctory analysis, and under Chenery she confines review to the grounds the ALJ actually stated (she will not let the Commissioner supply a post-hoc rationale on brief).
“This reasoning is only two sentences and is a barebones conclusion. ... This is 'the very type of perfunctory analysis' the Seventh Circuit has 'repeatedly found inadequate to dismiss an impairment as not meeting or equaling a Listing.'”
Procedural preferences
She runs discovery tightly and expects substantive, self-contained responses. Boilerplate 'investigation continues' answers and incorporation-by-reference to another answer are treated as a failure to respond, and she will award Rule 37(a)(5)(A) fees against the offending party. At the same time she actively polices proportionality, narrowing overbroad requests sua sponte (e.g., cutting a 10-year medical-history demand to the relevant period, withholding an SSN absent articulated need).
“Plaintiff's responses are evasive and tantamount to no response at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4) ('[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.').”
Cautions
Move to amend promptly: a Rule 15 motion to add affirmative defenses or claims will be denied for undue delay where the supporting facts were known earlier (especially late in a long discovery period) AND for futility where the proposed pleading could not survive a 12(b)(6) motion. Know the accrual rule before pleading a limitations defense -- a malicious-prosecution claim does not accrue until the criminal case terminates favorably (here, the acquittal on retrial, not the earlier vacatur).
“The Court denies Defendants' motion because Defendants failed to promptly seek leave to amend, and the proposed amendments would be futile. ... Defendants' affirmative defense that the statute of limitations would bar Plaintiff's IIED claim would not survive a motion to dismiss and is futile.”
Pro se status is not a pass on deadlines. In SSA appeals she enforces the 42 U.S.C. 405(g) 60-day limitations period strictly: filing an appeal with the Administration instead of a civil action in federal court, despite clear written instructions, is the litigant's own error and is not excused even where part of the timeline might otherwise support equitable tolling.
“pro se litigants are not entitled to a general dispensation from the rules of procedure or court imposed deadlines. ... Plaintiff offers no explanation as to why she did not follow the instructions on appealing the ALJ's decision.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 6 |
Granted: 3Denied: 3 | counts only |
| Motions to compel N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Default judgment N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for leave to amend N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for status N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“her motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 14, is granted and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 19, is denied. The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is reversed and the case is remanded.”
“the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 19, is denied. The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is reversed and the case is remanded.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 12, is granted, the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 20, is denied, and the decision of the ALJ is reversed and remanded.”
“the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 20, is denied, and the decision of the ALJ is reversed and remanded.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [17] is denied and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [24], is granted. The final decision of the Commissioner denying benefits is affirmed.”
“the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [24], is granted. The final decision of the Commissioner denying benefits is affirmed.”
“it is this Court's Report and Recommendation to the District Court that Defendant's motion to dismiss (taken as a motion for summary judgment) [13], be granted.”
“Defendants City Administrator for the City of Rockford ... ask the Court for leave to file an amended answer alleging amended affirmative defenses [284]. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is denied. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motion for leave to file amended affirmative defenses.”
“Defendants' motion to compel [93] is granted ... Defendants' request for reimbursement of their costs in bringing their motion to compel is also granted. Defendants must file a bill of costs and supporting documentation by December 30, 2021.”
“Plaintiff's motion to compel [94] is denied.”
“Plaintiff's motion for an update on the status of this motion [104], is denied as moot.”
“it is this Court's Report and Recommendation that the district court grant the Plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment [18] and enter judgment in the amount of $73,674.60 in favor of the Plaintiffs.”
Order read, EXCLUDED from motion stats (rules on no contested party motion). Interpleader action (28 U.S.C. 1335): State Farm deposited $28,664.67 in policy proceeds and was discharged; the two claimant defendants reached a settlement to split the funds equally. R&R recommends the District Court accept the settlement and direct the Clerk to disburse the deposited funds (plus interest) 50/50. Grounding quote: 'it is this Court's Report and Recommendation that the District Court accept the settlement of the Defendants and direct the Clerk of Court to disburse the deposited funds and any earned interest to the Defendants as set forth in this Report.' Counts as an order read, not toward motion stats.