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.

Marvel v. SSA (3:25-cv-00308-TLS) | Northern District of Indiana

The case was briefed in Federal Court in September 2025 by our team, arguing that the ALJ’s RFC determination was the product of legal error because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the supportability and consistency of the medical opinions, precluding the Court’s ability to meaningfully review whether the decision is supported with substantial evidence.

The U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing, and we agreed. On February 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Theresa Lazar Springmann 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.

Lucero v. SSA (6:24-cv-02119) | Middle District of Florida

This was a 2020 Title II claim for Disability Income Benefits. The client appealed this denial in Federal Court in 2025 through an appeal brief written by our team. The Middle District of Florida reviewed our arguments and agreed that the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision was not supported by substantial evidence, finding the ALJ’s RFC determination was not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ improperly evaluated opinion evidence and substituted her own opinion over that of medical professionals. Thus, the matter was remanded.

Lilley v. SSA (5:25-cv-00025-DLR) | Western District of Virginia

The case was briefed in Federal Court in October of 2025, arguing the following:

1. The ALJ erred by failing to explain how she reconciled mild restrictions in in interacting with others—established in the “B” criteria at step three of the sequential evaluation process—with her omission of corresponding limitations in the RFC determination.
2. The ALJ did not provide a proper supportability and consistency analysis of the opinion of consultative examiner, Monica Bowler, PA-C, and the lack of substantial evidence for rejecting the opinion was harmful because Plaintiff’s borderline age was not considered.

On January 22, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe recommended finding that the Administrative Law Judge did not correctly apply 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c to a consultative examiner’s medical opinion that Christina’s back impairment restricts her to four hours standing and “less than 2 hours” walking in an eight-hour workday. He noted that—when the ALJ found the opinion “partial[ly] persuasive” because “the light RFC and occasional postural limitations were consistent with and supported by” the record—the ALJ did not reference or describe any particular evidence. The U.S. Magistrate Judge recommended holding that the “articulation requirements in § 416.920c are mandatory.” U.S. Magistrate Judge Hoppe declined to reach Plaintiff’s first issue but recommended finding that the written decision demonstrates that the ALJ “did not correctly apply”20 C.F.R. § 416.920c to the conflicting medical opinions.

On February 9, 2026, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, JASMINE H. YOON, adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Keraoui v. SSA (9:24-cv-81147) | Southern District of Florida

This was a 2021 Title II claim for Social Security Income Benefits. The client appealed this denial in Federal Court in 2025 through an appeal brief written by our team. The Southern District of Florida reviewed our arguments and agreed that the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision was not supported by substantial evidence, finding the ALJ failed to explain his reasoning for rejecting opinion evidence favorable to the client’s disability claim, and instead relied on evidence summaries that precluded meaningful review of the ALJ’s decision.