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.

Dailey v. SSA (6:24-cv-1540-MJK) | Northern District of New York

The claimant in this case suffers from conversion disorder, which much like fibromyalgia and similar conditions, is characterized by negative findings and symptoms inconsistent with those findings. Despite this, the ALJ rejected the claimant’s allegations for inconsistency with objective medical findings, or more specifically, the lack thereof. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the ALJ’s reference to benign MRIs, EMG studies, and unremarkable physical examinations as somehow inconsistent with symptoms caused by psychological conversion was a legally erroneous basis for his conclusion. Moreover, the ALJ had erred by explicitly rejecting Plaintiff’s allegations on the basis of objective evidence alone. The Commissioner did not attempt to argue otherwise and stipulated to the need for remand.

Cusatis v. SSA (4:24-cv-188-JRH-CLR) | Southern District of Georgia

Despite finding the claimant’s mental impairments severe and limiting in three of the four broad areas of mental functioning, the ALJ assessed just one RFC limitation – only occasional public contact. Plaintiff argued, and the Court agreed, that the ALJ had impermissibly assessed this RFC without the benefit of the consultative psychological evaluation that was scheduled to occur subsequent to the administrative hearing. The Court noted that the issue here was not “solely” the “absence of a consultative examination,” but rather the absence of that evidence despite the ALJ’s own prior admission that it was necessary to decide the claim. As nothing in the decision served to explain why the ALJ issued a decision without the evidence she recognized as necessary, the Court concluded that the ALJ had erroneously failed to develop the record, thereby necessitating remand.

Mausolf v. SSA (1:25-cv-0022) | Middle District of Tennessee

The case was briefed in Federal Court in August of 2025 by our team, arguing as follows:

1. The ALJ failed to adequately evaluate and sufficiently explain his consideration of the opinions of P. Jeffrey Wright, Ph.D., and Fawz Schoup, Ph.D., who reviewed the evidence at the initial and reconsideration levels. The ALJ’s analysis violates the regulations at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c and the omission of pertinent restrictions has resulted in an RFC that is not supported by substantial evidence.
2. The RFC failed to properly account for moderate restrictions in dealing with others adopted at step three in the sequential evaluation process and the ALJ offered no explanation for the discrepancy.

The U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing and we agreed. On September 25, 2025, U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger granted the uncontested motion of the parties and remanded the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 1383(c)(3), for a new hearing and the issuance of a new decision.

Wallace v. SSA (1:24-cv-00082-GNS-LLK) | Western District of Kentucky

The case was briefed in Federal Court in September of 2024, arguing the following:

1. The ALJ erred by failing to properly evaluate and explain his analysis of the physical restrictions assessed by Jerome A. Dixon, D.O., Plaintiff’s treating source.
2. The ALJ committed legal error by failing to properly evaluate and explain his analysis of the restrictions assessed by Psychologist Julie Joseph-Fox, M.A., who performed the agency’s consultative mental evaluation.

United States Magistrate Judge Lanny King issued a Report and Recommendation on August 26, 2025, recommending that the District Judge remand this case for further consideration. He cited Hardy v. SSA, 554 F.Supp.3d 900 (E. D. Mich. 2002), for its holding that the ALJ does not meet the articulation requirement by including an “extensive summarization of the record” elsewhere in the Decision, when the ALJ offers no citation to specific medical source notes that contradict the assessments. U.S. Magistrate Judge King recommended that the District Court find that the ALJ’s rejection of the opinions of Dixon and Joseph-Fox fails to comply with the articulation requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(b)(2); 416.920c(b)(2). On September 10, 2025, Chief District Judge Greg N. Stiver adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.