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.

Schuchman v. SSA (0:25-cv-02770-DTS) | District of Minnesota

Mr. Schuchman’s claim was denied after the Administrative Law Judge determined that his treating doctor’s opinion was unpersuasive. To support that opinion, the judge cited objective findings that the treating doctor made, but did not explain why they did not support the opinion. We argued that the findings DID support the opinion. Federal court sent the case back to the agency with instructions to explain why the opinion is unsupported by the doctor’s findings, and why the opinion is not consistent with Mr. Schuchman’s daily activities.

McConnell v. SSA (4:26-cv-00283-CEH) | Northern District of Ohio

The court explained that the ALJ did not evaluate the opinion evidence correctly. A medical opinion restricted Ms. M to “superficial contact,” and the ALJ found the opinion generally persuasive, but did not include this restriction because it was vague. The issue has been litigated before though, and “superficial contact” is not vague. The ALJ also described the opinion as consistent with a neuropsychological evaluation, but that evaluation contained a lot of observations about Ms. M’s limitations that the ALJ overlooked. The ALJ also totally overlooked a functional capacity evaluation, perhaps because it was submitted pretty late and the ALJ had already made up their mind.

Stanford v. SSA (5:26-cv-00136-MAD-MJK) | Northern District of New York

This was a 2023 claim for Title XVI Supplemental Security Income. The client’s claim was denied initially, as well as upon reconsideration, at hearing, and at the Appeals Council level. OLG helped the client appeal the denial in Federal Court in 2025 through an appeal brief written by our federal court team. The Northern District of New York reviewed our arguments and agreed that the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical opinions in the medical file, thus making the ALJ’s determination unsupported by substantial evidence. The Northern District of New York voluntarily remanded the case for a new hearing and determination.

Young v. SSA (3:25-cv-01181-GPC-BJW) | Southern District of California

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

1. Whether the ALJ erred by failing to reconcile her mental findings in the “B” criteria at steps two and three of the sequential evaluation process with the limitations she assessed in the RFC determination.
2. Whether the ALJ’s RFC determination is legally erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence, because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion of psychological consultative examiner, J.J. Durr, Ph.D.
3. Whether the ALJ violated 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, by failing to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective allegations.

On August 24, 2026, United States District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel recommended remand. He found that—while the ALJ considered the non-severe limitations in its Step Two findings—the ALJ did not explain why the RFC contains no mental restrictions, and this was error because mild mental impairments should be addressed when formulating the RFCs. U.S. District Judge Curiel also noted that the ALJ pointed to a lack of treatment from a mental health care provider and normal psychiatric/neurologic examinations throughout the record but held the ALJ failed to explain how the additional facts in the record are inconsistent with Dr. Durr’s opinion. Finally, while Judge Curiel recognized that the ALJ noted Plaintiff’s back pain was treated conservatively and Plaintiff used his Tramadol sparingly, he found remand necessary since the ALJ only highlighted medical findings that do not provide strong support to Plaintiff’s testimony. It was held that, the fact that Plaintiff’s back pain was treated conservatively and that certain medicines were used sparingly does not provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony. Accordingly, U.S. District Judge Curiel granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.