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.

Shively v. SSA (4:24-cv-01341-DAP) | Northern District of Ohio

Plaintiff appealed the ALJ’s denial of her SSI benefits based upon a flawed evaluation of her physician’s medical opinion. The Magistrate Judge found the ALJ did not explain what evidence from the record actually undermined the opinion. Here, the ALJ failed to mention “extensive accommodations” Plaintiff receives from her school and also the assistance she receives from her mother. The Court noted that the ALJ found short-term memory loss to be a severe impairment as well as positive findings that actually support the opinion elsewhere in the decision. The Judge stated that “the ALJ failed to explain how this medical evidence undercuts [the physician’s] opinion.” Id. at 11. The Court also noted other findings “supportive of disability in the record” that the ALJ failed to discuss. Id. at *12. The Court reiterated that, “It is well established that the ALJ may not ignore or overlook contrary lines of evidence.” Id. at 12.

Wilson v. SSA (TXWD 1:24-cv-00537-RP-DH) | Western District of Texas

In this case, United States Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the District Judge remand this case for further consideration of Wilson’s impairments utilizing the “minimal effects” standard applied in the Fifth Circuit and set forth in SSR 85-28. Thereafter, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Drayton v. SSA 1:24-cv-3729-FB (EDNY) | Eastern District of New York

The Court recognized that the ALJ is prohibited from arbitrarily crafting functional limitations and must tether each RFC finding to a proper evidentiary basis and reasoning. Here, the Court concluded that ALJ had inadequately explained and justified his RFC findings, and it rejected Defendant’s post hoc attempt to offer an explanation on the ALJ’s half. Additionally, the Court noted that the few RFC limitations the ALJ did attempt to explain were premised on impermissible cherry-picking and mischaracterization of the record. Finally, the Court agreed with Plaintiff that it was an error for the ALJ to fail to develop the record that the Commissioner’s own medical consultants unanimously declared insufficient, thereby effectively playing doctor. The culmination of these errors necessitated remand.

Wilcox v. SSA (2:23-cv-1823-MRH) | Western District of Pennsylvania

In this case, Plaintiff argued that the ALJ had failed to explain how the evidence could support a finding that Plaintiff can perform work requiring near vision acuity where all three medical opinions to address the issue concluded otherwise. The Court agreed with Plaintiff and, as the only jobs the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform all required an ability that the record clearly establishes Plaintiff lacks, the Court found it appropriate to reverse and remand for a directed award of benefits rather than for further proceedings.