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.

Burton v. SSA (4:25-cv-00020) | Eastern District of Tennessee

This was a 2022 claim for Title II Disability Income Benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income. The client’s claim was denied initially, as well as upon reconsideration, hearing, and at the Appeals Council level. The client appealed this denial in Federal Court in 2025 through an appeal brief written by our team. The Eastern District of Tennessee reviewed our arguments and listened to oral arguments. The Court 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 failed to explain how “midpoint” limitations were reached, and that Defendant’s explanation constituted a post-hoc rationalization.

Hayden v. SSA (1:25-cv-00419-KAJ) | Southern District of Utah

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

1. The ALJ failed to adequately evaluate and sufficiently explain her consideration of the opinions of Regina McKinney, Psy.D., and Bryan J. Krabbe, Psy.D., the agency’s consultative evaluating psychologists, and the omission of pertinent restrictions has resulted in an RFC that is not supported by substantial evidence.
2. The RFC—which finds that Plaintiff can never work in proximity to moving, mechanical parts—is inconsistent with the job of floor waxer, and the other two jobs on which this denial rests do not exist in significant numbers in the national economy.

On May 12, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Jolson found that the ALJ’s analysis failed to adequately address the factor of supportability in considering the opinions of Drs. McKinney and Krabbe. Judge Jolson noted that the ALJ must explain such a finding in a way that permits meaningful review. She held, “As it stands, the Undersigned cannot trace the ALJ’s reasoning. In other words, the ALJ has not built “an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and [her] conclusion.” In view of her ruling on the first issue, US Magistrate Judge Jolson did not reach Plaintiff’s second point of error. However, she added, “As a final note, the ALJ may consider Plaintiff’s other assignments of error on remand as appropriate.”

Ultimately, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jolson granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Gibson v. SSA (0:25-cv-04044) | District of South Carolina

This was a 2021 claim for Title II Disability Income Benefits. The client’s claim was denied initially, as well as upon reconsideration, hearing, and at the Appeals Council level. The client appealed this denial in Federal Court in 2025 through an appeal brief written by our team. The District of South Carolina reviewed our arguments and agreed that the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) failed to provide a sufficient “logical bridge” from the evidence to the conclusion that a medical source opinion was not supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ thus remanded the decision.

Simons v. SSA (2:25-cv-02847-CSMW) | Eastern District of Pennsylvania

In this case, the ALJ failed to consider the effects of Plaintiff’s non-severe MRSA infection in conjunction with the RFC finding. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that ALJ failed to even consider the highly infectious disease when determining Plaintiff’s ability to work. The Court found that restrictions from the disease could be probative, as Plaintiff reported the need to isolate for up to a week at a time.