had even a “moderate limitation” adhering to a schedule or concentrating or understanding or handling instructions, then she would be precluded from work (Id.). The ALJ’s failure to address this issue in her opinion raises a red flag that, at a minimum, needs to be acknowledged on remand and then lowered if the Commissioner continues to deny Title II benefits for the relevant period. See Sayles v. Barnhart, No. 00 C 7200, 2001 WL 1568850, at *9 (N.D.Ill., Dec. 7, 2001)(finding that “the fundamental problem with the ALJ’s determination is that both in the body of her ruling and in her findings, she addressed the vocational expert’s opinion in response to only one of the hypotheticals ... and disregarded the others”); see also Connor v. Shalala, 900 F.Supp. 994, 1003-04 (N.D.Ill.1995) (<HOLDING>). Turning to the speech aphasia issue, the
holding that lack of medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain testimony but is a factor that an alj may consider holding that vocational experts testimony that there were jobs claimant could perform constituted substantial evidence holding that the failure to articulate the basis for declining jurisdiction may be clear error holding that an alj is entitled to rely on vocational experts testimony that is based on assumptions that are supported by evidence in the record holding that the alj did not consider the vocational experts testimony on crossexamination and failed to articulate a basis for rejecting this evidence which was a basis for remand