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.

Lee v. SSA (cv-24-1134) | Western District of Oklahoma

The Court noted the ALJ created an internal inconsistency when he rejected a treating provider’s opinion based upon chronic neck and back pain, which was credited when evaluating other opinions. The Court also found that broad statements such as opinions being “generally unsupported by the evidence” failed to meet regulatory requirements because the ALJ failed “to provide any analysis in support of this statement.” The Court also noted that “normal mental status examination findings” does not sufficiently explain why a limitation concerning absenteeism is not persuasive. Remand was found to be appropriate.

Lopez v. SSA (2:24-cv-4037) | Central District of California

The ALJ committed multiple errors in this case, all with regard to Plaintiff’s capacity to perform her past relevant work. First, the ALJ had misclassified Plaintiff’s past relevant work as that of a similar, but distinct and less physically and mentally demanding type of teacher’s aide. Given that this incorrect classification formed the basis for the ALJ’s Step 4 evaluation, the Court determined that this error alone necessitated remand.

Guidry v. SSA (6:23-cv-01742) | Western District of Louisiana

Here, the ALJ had found mild mental limitations in the Psychiatric Review Technique in the decision but then “offers no further analysis of these mild limitations on the RFC.” Id. at 3. The District Court found this was error because “the ALJ is required to consider this issue and to offer such analysis as part of her written decision.” Id. at 3 (citing Castillo v. SSA, 599 F. Supp. 3d 483 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2022); Melanie M. v. SSA 3033 WL 3349234 at *4 (N.D. tex. July 20, 2022) adopted by 2022 WL 3349155 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2022). Remand was warranted in order to pose a complete hypothetical that incorporated Plaintiff’s mild mental limitations.

Montgomery v. SSA (3:24-cv-00138) | District of Alaska

In this case, the District of Alaska remanded the ALJ’s decision for the calculation of benefits due to the SSA’s repeated failure to provide an ALJ decision supported by substantial evidence. The Court held that the ALJ improperly evaluated opinion evidence favorable to the client’s disability claim, improperly identified jobs the client was supposedly capable of performing, and failed to provide significant job numbers. These errors were so egregious that the Court felt it prudent to award benefits rather than send the case back for another hearing.

Price v. SSA (3:24-cv-00272) | Southern District of Ohio

United States Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura issued a Report and Recommendation on June 3, 2025, recommending that the District Judge remand this case for further consideration. U.S. Magistrate Judge Vascura agreed with Plaintiff that the record contained no medical opinion evidence supporting the ALJ’s physical RFC determination, and that the ALJ erred by relying solely on his own lay interpretation of raw medical data in reaching his conclusion.

She cited Deskin v. SSA, 605 F. Supp.2d 908, 912 (N.D. Ohio 2008) and Kizys v. SSA, No. 3:10-cv-25, 2011 WL 5024866, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2011) in support of her recommended holding that an ALJ must obtain opinion evidence to satisfy the duty to develop the record in at least two circumstances. She recommended finding that one of those circumstance arises when an ALJ is required to make medical judgments about a claimant’s functional abilities by interpreting raw medical data, and that a second circumstance arises when a medical opinion must be obtained because “a ‘critical body’ of the ‘objective medical evidence’ is not accounted for by a medical opinion and there is significant evidence of potentially disabling conditions. In this case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Vascura recommended that the District Court hold that the first Deskin circumstance applies. On July 2, 2025, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Newman adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.