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.

Scovell v. SSA (5:23-cv-421-AMN-PJE) | Northern District of New York

The Northern District of New York remanded this case for further proceedings due to the ALJ’s unexplained reliance on Plaintiff’s activities of daily living as a reason to reject her doctor’s opinion about the limitations she would have in a work environment. Specifically, the ALJ pointed to Plaintiff’s ability to drive a car, do chores around the house, go to medical appointments, and care for her child, none of which equates to the ability to perform substantial gainful activity. Additionally, the Court faulted the ALJ for ignoring the limitations Plaintiff expressed with regard to her ability to perform each of her daily activities. Ultimately, the ALJ’s lack of explanation and his failure to address evidence, which contradicted his conclusions, proved fatal.

Thomas v. SSA (4:24-cv-94-B) | Eastern District of North Carolina

Plaintiff argued that the ALJ failed to meet his burden at Step 5, where the vocational expert provided job numbers which were representative of an entire group of occupations rather than specific to the occupations Plaintiff was found capable of performing. In addition to vocational testimony, Plaintiff pointed to a SkillTRAN report confirming that the specific occupations cited at step 5 constitute, collectively, just 241 jobs in the nation, well-below the 1.2 million that formed the basis for the ALJ’s finding of not disabled. This, in addition to several other unresolved ambiguities in the vocational expert’s testimony, lead the Court to conclude that the testimony did not clearly constitute substantial evidence which would support the ALJ’s step 5 decision. Thus, the case was remanded for the ALJ to obtain clarification of the testimony.

Grace v. SSA (1:25-cv-03027-EFS) | Eastern District of Washington

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

1. The ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff does not have a severe impairment, and the vocational testimony confirms that a limitation to light work would invoke a favorable grid rule.
2. The ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s subjective allegations without properly considering them in the manner required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p and without providing clear and convincing reasons.

The U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing, and we agreed. On October 8, 2025, Senior United States District Judge, EDWARD F. SHEA, 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.

Bienvenu v. SSA (1:24-cv-00080-CHS) | Eastern District of Tennessee

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

1. The ALJ failed to adequately evaluate and sufficiently explain his consideration of the opinion of Stephen Goewey, M.D., who performed the agency’s consultative physical examination. The ALJ’s analysis violates the regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c, and the omission of pertinent restrictions has resulted in an RFC that is not supported by substantial evidence.
2. The ALJ failed to adequately evaluate and sufficiently explain his consideration of the opinion of Justin Wright, Psy.D., who performed the agency’s consultative psychological examination. The ALJ’s analysis violates the regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c, and the omission of pertinent restrictions has resulted in an RFC that is not supported by substantial evidence.
3. The ALJ violated 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, by rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective allegations without properly evaluating her statements in relation to the medical evidence.

On September 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge Christopher H. Steger granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, finding error in the ALJ’s failure to discuss supportability. District Judge Steger concluded that the ALJ’s sentence stating that Dr. Goewey’s opinion is only somewhat supported by the “entirety of the record discussed above” does not suffice, noting that—while the ALJ does make an observation about the insufficiency of Dr. Goewey’s conclusion—she does not point to any failure on the part of Dr. Goewey to support his opinion through evidence and explanations. Ultimately he held that the decision falls well short of adequately addressing this issue. Because remand of the claim was required for the ALJ to reconsider Dr. Goewey’s opinion, District Judge Steger remanded the case for further proceedings on this basis and declined to reach the other arguments.