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 procures 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.

Lozito v. SSA (21-cv-05969-JMW) | Eastern District of New York

Plaintiff argued that the ALJ erred by finding him capable of work involving fine visual acuity and frequent handling and fingering, findings premised on erroneous evaluation of opinion evidence and unsupported by any medical evidence. Additionally, Plaintiff argued that the ALJ erred by failing to account for Plaintiff’s limitations in concentrating, persisting, and maintaining pace when assessing the RFC. The Court ordered remand for the aforementioned errors and required the remand proceedings to occur within sixty days of the entry of judgment.

Tyson v. SSA (3:24-cv-1102-MCC) | Middle District of Pennsylvania

Plaintiff argued that remand was necessary because the ALJ’s decision contained internal inconsistencies, which prevented meaningful review of his evaluation of Plaintiff’s mental functioning. Specifically, the ALJ’s evaluation of psychiatric opinion evidence conflicted with the ALJ’s RFC assessment, and the ALJ’s step 5 conclusion conflicted with that RFC and the testimony of the vocational expert. Unable to argue otherwise, the Commissioner stipulated to the need for remand, and the Court so ordered.

Keegan v. SSA (CACD 2:24-cv-06089-ADS) | Central District of California

In this case the U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing based on our arguments that:

1. The ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff did not have a severe mental impairment prior to the expiration of her insured status, and the step 2 error tainted the remainder of the steps in the sequential evaluation process; and

2. The ALJ failed to properly consider the fact that Plaintiff described residuals following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, and the ALJ rejected the mental aspect of her subjective allegations without properly considering them as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p and without providing clear and convincing reasons.

Edwards v. SSA (4:24-cv-1107-DHP) | Southern District of Texas

In this case the Court ordered a remand for the rare finding of disability and a calculation of benefits. Plaintiff argued that that ALJ’s RFC was the product of legal error because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical opinion evidence in reaching that finding. The ALJ failed to provide reasons for rejection of opined limitations that were ignored in the decision. It was also unclear how/whether the ALJ considered the fact that the only opinion he found persuasive was contradicted by the source’s own findings. Finally, the ALJ’s stated reason for rejecting other limitations was inadequately explained because the cited evidence of alleged inconsistency had no apparent relation to the rejected limitations. The Court observed that this was the second time the ALJ had engaged in such errors and produced an unsupported decision. That, coupled with the fact that the record was fully developed, led the Court to issue a favorable Decision.