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.

Guzman v. SSA (25-cv-00009) | District of Utah

In 25-cv-00009, we challenged the ALJ’s evaluation of the consultative examiner’s opinion and argued that there was not a sufficient or meaningful articulation of the ALJ’s evaluation of supportability or consistency. In response, Defendant attempted to justify the ALJ’s deficient evaluation by looking to the decision as a whole. The MJ soundly rejected this and wrote, “Where Agency regulations specifically require an ALJ to ‘explain how [he] considered the supportability and consistency factors for a medical source’s medical opinions,’ the ALJ’s failure to do so here was error.”

Lycan v. SSA (3:25-cv-00093-DJN-SMS) | Eastern District of Virginia

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

1. The ALJ rejected overwhelming evidence in crafting the RFC and failed to base his decision on such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support his conclusion.
2. The ALJ erred by failing to properly evaluate and explain his analysis of the opinions of Abraham Asmamaw, M.D., who saw Plaintiff for two internal medicine consultative evaluations at the agency’s request.
3. The ALJ erred by failing to properly evaluate and explain his analysis of the opinion of Carol McCleary, Psy.D., who saw Plaintiff for a consultative psychological examination at the agency’s request.
4. The ALJ violated 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 and SSR 16-3p, by failing to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective allegations.

On February 5, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Summer L. Speight recommended finding that the ALJ failed to provide a sufficient narrative explanation supporting his conclusion that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints are inconsistent with the totality of the evidence. Because she recommended that the Court find that the ALJ’s error in evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective complaints justifies remand, she declines to address Plaintiff’s remaining assignments of error. On remand, however, she recommended that the Court also instruct the ALJ to consider those additional allegations of error.

On March 4, 2026, U.S. District Judge, David J. Novak, adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Mullin v. SSA (1:25-12225-LTS) | District of Massachusetts

The case was briefed in Federal Court in January 2026 by our team, arguing as follows:

1. The ALJ failed to adequately evaluate and sufficiently explain his analysis of the opinions of Adam Cox, Ph.D., and Mark Brooks, Ph.D., who conducted consultative mental examinations at the agency’s request. The ALJ’s analysis violates 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c, and the omission of disabling mental restrictions assessed by these agency-chosen sources resulted in an RFC that is not supported by substantial evidence.
2. The ALJ erred in failing to find that Plaintiff established a medically determinable impairment of fibromyalgia as explained in Social Security Ruling 12-2p, and the ALJ’s step two error tainted the remainder of the steps in the sequential evaluation process.

The U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing, and we agreed. On March 3, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin 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.

Oden v. SSA (1:25-00047-WLC) | Middle District of Tennessee

The case was briefed in Federal Court in December 2025 by our team, arguing that the ALJ failed to adequately evaluate and sufficiently explain his consideration of the opinion of Calvin Davis, M.D., Plaintiff’s treating source; 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.

The U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing, and we agreed. On March 10, 2026, U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr., 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.