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.

McCray v. SSA (1:24-cv-00570-ALT) | Northern District of Indiana

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

1. The ALJ failed to address Listing 1.15, despite evidence that Plaintiff’s lumbar degenerative disc disease and facet arthropathy with radiculopathy in the lower extremities satisfies this Listing.
2. The RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ committed legal error by failing to properly evaluate and explain his analysis of the opinion of Alicia Julovich, M.D., who performed the agency’s consultative internal medicine evaluation.
3. The decision violates SSR 16-3p, and the ALJ failed to comply with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4), pointing to no genuine inconsistencies between the subjective allegations and the other evidence in the record.

We consented to the jurisdiction of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew L. Teel, and on November 12, 2025, he held that the ALJ failed to adequately address the factors required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c) and 416.920c(c) and build a logical bridge when rejecting Dr. Julovich’s opinion, which was more akin to a limited range of sedentary work, in favor of Dr. Sands’s opinion for a limited range of light-exertional work. Magistrate Judge Teel did not reach Plaintiff’s other allegations of error, but on the basis of the second point, he remanded this case for further proceedings.

Higgins v. SSA (1:25-cv-00940-MJD-TWP) | Southern District of Indiana

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

1. The ALJ erred at Step 4 by determining that Plaintiff’s ability to interact with others is unimpaired, despite the contrary opinion of State agency psychologists Joelle J. Larsen, Ph.D., and Stacia L. Hill, Ph.D.
2. The ALJ erred at Step 4 by violating SSR 16-3p and by failing to comply with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4), since she points to no genuine inconsistencies between the subjective allegations of physical limitations and the other evidence in the record.

The U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing, and we agreed. On November 20, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore granted the uncontested motion of the parties and remanded the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for a new hearing and the issuance of a new decision.

Moore v. SSA (6:24-cv-00328-JCB-JDL) | Eastern District of Texas

In this case, Plaintiff argued that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate several medical opinions. The Magistrate Judge initially recommended that the Court affirm the ALJ’s decision based on an explanation of supportability and consistency, which the ALJ had never endorsed. After reviewing Plaintiff’s objections, the Court rejected the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, in part. The District Court Judge found that the ALJ had failed to explain his conclusion as to the supportability factor for at least one of the medical opinions at issue. Therefore, the ALJ’s decision was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Casarez v. SSA (6:25-cv-00079-DTG) | Western District of Texas

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

1. The ALJ’s physical RFC determination is legally erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence, because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion of Brett J. Bolte, M.D., who performed the consultative physical examination.
2. The ALJ impermissibly relied on his own lay medical opinion as to Plaintiff’s limitations, rather than seeking additional clarification from the consultative examiner or obtaining input from a medical expert.

The U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing, and we agreed. On November 20, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland granted the uncontested motion of the parties and remanded the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for a new hearing and the issuance of a new decision.