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.

Brown v. SSA (3:24-cv-05649-TLF) | Western District of Washington

This client retained our services for federal court appeal of his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI. The claims had been denied initially, on reconsideration, before an ALJ at the hearing and by the Appeals Council. The case was briefed in Federal Court in December of 2025, arguing the ALJ failed to adequately evaluate and sufficiently explain his analysis of the opinion of Joel C. Mitchell, Ph.D., who evaluated Plaintiff at the agency’s request, the decision violates 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(b)(2), 416.920c(b)(2), and the omission of pertinent mental restrictions has resulted in an RFC that is not supported by substantial evidence.

On September 2, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke ruled in Plaintiff’s favor.

She noted Defendant’s assertion of reasons beyond those stated by the ALJ, but ruled the Court must “review the ALJ’s decision based on the reasoning and factual findings offered by the ALJ—not post hoc rationalizations that attempt to intuit what the adjudicator may have been thinking.” With regard to reasons the ALJ gave, she found the first reason mischaracterized the record. As for the ALJ’s second reason, she found the ALJ’s general reliance on social activities in apposite, noting the ALJ failed to explain specifically how social interactions with friends and family are transferable to a work environment or inconsistent with Dr. Mitchell’s evaluation.

As for the ALJ’s final reason, US Magistrate Judge Fricke found the ALJ’s general explanation regarding Dr. Mitchell’s “normal” findings to be insufficient. She held it is not enough for the ALJ to simply state that some evidence is inconsistent with a medical source’s opinion, or that the opinion is not internally supported because the ALJ is required to build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the ALJ’s conclusion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for relief was granted, and the case was remanded the case for further proceedings.

Johnson v. SSA (4:26-cv-00476 | Southern District of Texas

This was a 2022 claim for Title XVI supplemental security income. The client’s claim was denied initially and again on reconsideration, after his hearing, and at the Appeals Council level. OLG helped the client appeal the decision in Federal Court in 2026 with a brief that was written and filed by our federal court team. The Southern District of Texas 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 and determined the client’s residual functional capacity out of whole cloth, thus making the ALJ’s determination unsupported by substantial evidence. The Southern District of Texas voluntarily remanded the case for a new hearing and determination.

Royston v. SSA (5:25-cv-00470-LEK-MJK) | Northern District of New York

This client retained our services for appeal of her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. Following unfavorable decisions from the ALJ and the Appeals Council, we accepted her case for federal court appeal. The case was briefed in Federal Court in November of 2025, arguing the following:

1. The ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating urologist, Elizabeth K. Ferry, M.D., and she failed to adequately explain her consideration of how the factors of supportability and consistency led her to find the assessment to be unpersuasive.
2. The ALJ found the opinion of Joseph Gaeta, M.D., a medical expert who responded to medical interrogatories, only partially persuasive and she rejected multiple restrictions assessed by this source without adequately explaining how the factors of supportability and consistency led her to find the opinion less than fully persuasive.
3. The ALJ found the opinion of Jerisa Johnson Berry, M.D., the medical expert who testified during the May 2024 hearing, generally persuasive and supported by explanation and citations to the record, but she failed to adopt limitations in sitting, standing, and walking, as assessed by Dr. Berry, and she offered no explanation for omitting these limitations from the RFC.
4. The RFC failed to account for moderate mental limitations adopted at step three in the sequential evaluation process, and the ALJ offered no explanation for the discrepancy.

On March 24, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz ruled for Plaintiff on the first three issues, but found the ALJ’s analysis of how the moderate mental limitations adopted at step three were considered in the fourth step of the sequential evaluation process to be adequate. Ultimately, U.S. Magistrate Judge Katz recommended granting Plaintiff’s request for relief. On September 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn adopted the report and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Bailey v. SSA (4:25-cv-00115-CRS-HBB) | Western District of Kentucky

This was a 2021 claim for Title II disability insurance benefits. The client’s claim was denied initially and again on reconsideration, after his hearing, and at the Appeals Council levels. OLG helped the client appeal the decision in Federal Court in 2026 with a brief that was written and filed by our federal court team. The Western District of Kentucky, Owensboro Division, 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 opinion provided by the State agency medical consultant and determined the client’s residual functional capacity out of whole cloth, thus making the ALJ’s determination unsupported by substantial evidence. The Western District of Kentucky, Owensboro Division, voluntarily remanded the case for a new hearing and determination.