We’re frequently asked how we win remands on the many cases that get referred to us. We have found that almost all ALJ decisions have errors in them. It’s pointing out those errors to OGC and the Court which gets us the remand.

We are presently finding that the ALJs are not following the new regulations on supportability and consistency. If your client’s decision did not sufficiently analyze both the supportability and consistency of all the medical opinions, we want to review that case for federal court.

We’re excited to share some of our recent case victories with you. Here you can read details directly from our attorneys.

Martinez v. SSA (cv-22-00580-PHX-JJT) | District of Arizona

In this case, the ALJ erred by failing to properly address whether Plaintiff’s depression and anxiety were severe at step two of the sequential evaluation process. The Court found the ALJ improperly cherry-picked the evidence by discussing only the reports that “appeared normal.” The Court found the ALJ improperly found these impairments to be non-severe “without referencing any affirmative evidence of Plaintiff’s mental illness.” The ALJ thus improperly considered in isolation only the evidence that supported his conclusion. Also noted that the Commissioner’s attorney’s post hoc rationalizations for the ALJ’s findings “cannot form the basis for affirming.” (citing Bray v. SSA, 554 F.3d 1219, 1225 – 9th Cir. 2009).

-Lori Tilley-Beeler, Esq.

Harris v. SSA (5:23-cv-293-AMN-TWD) | Northern District of New York

The ALJ had improperly rejected both the medical opinions and subjective allegations about the impact of the claimant’s mental health symptoms based on an unelaborated critique that both were inconsistent with unrelated daily activity. The ALJ declined to support his erroneous contention that any of the claimant’s limited activities were “the same functions” that a work environment demands on a sustained basis outside of the comfort of an agoraphobic’s home. In addition, the ALJ had impermissibly relied on misstatements of fact and noncompliance with 20 CFR 404.1520c to reject other supportive medical opinions. The Commissioner did not attempt to argue otherwise, but stipulated to the reversal of the ALJ’s decision and remand for further proceedings.

-Caeden Sehested, Esq.

Davenport v. SSA (1:23-cv-0206-CHS) | Eastern District of Tennessee

This client retained our services for Federal Court appeal of her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits. Her claim was denied twice by an ALJ. Our team argued that the ALJ failed to adequately evaluate and sufficiently explain his consideration of the opinions of the agency’s consultative examination, that the ALJ’s analysis violates the regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c, and that the omission of pertinent restrictions has resulted in a mental RFC that is not supported by substantial evidence. The U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing, and we agreed.

-Julie Atkins, Esq.

Nodes v. SSA (5:22-cv-03433-BHH) | District of South Carolina

In Nodes v. SSA, the District of South Carolina enforced the plain language of the Commissioner’s regulations. There, the ALJ clearly omitted any reference to the supportability factor when evaluating the opinion evidence of record. While the Commissioner attempted to argue that the Court could glean the ALJ’s rationale from other parts of the Decision, the Court noted the clear and unequivocal regulation requiring ALJ’s articulate their consideration of those two factors.

-Matthew McGarry, Esq.

Falbru v. SSA (6:21-cv-06583-EAW) | Western District of New York

Though Plaintiff did not raise an Appointments Clause challenge to the first of the ALJ’s two decisions, he had made a timely challenge to the validity of the ALJ’s appointment following the second decision. The court concluded that, in accordance with the holdings in Lucia and Carr, the only proper remedy was to remand the matter for a new hearing with a different constitutionally appointed ALJ.

-Howard Olinsky, Esq.

Jack v. SSA (1:22-cv-02174) | District of Colorado

The Commissioner stipulated to remand in a case where Plaintiff suffered from multiple sclerosis and childhood radiation. The treating neurologist found numerous work preclusive mental limitations relating to being off task; the ability to concentrate, persist, or maintain pace; the ability to understand, remember, or apply information; and the requirement for daily naps. Here, the ALJ mischaracterized the nature of the opinion stating it was not objective based on the form provided when in fact said form allotted for multiple options (both favorable and unfavorable to Plaintiff) and the doctor substantiated his choices citing the gold standard of testing for MS (neuropsychological testing), thus rendering the opinion based clearly upon objective testing and not Plaintiff’s subjective reports as the ALJ falsely concluded.

-Ted Wicklund, Esq.

Mafara v. SSA (2:22-cv-02142) | District of Nevada

This was a 2020 claim for Title II and Title XVI claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The District of Nevada reviewed our arguments and agreed that the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the Court found the ALJ grossly mischaracterized the client’s treatment history and failed to evaluate material medical opinion evidence. The District of Nevada thus remanded the matter for a new decision.

-Daniel Brady, Esq.

Have a question or comment? Write it below and we’ll respond to you as soon as possible!