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.

Johnson v. SSA (2:25-cv-00503-DBB-DAO) | District of Utah

“Judge Barlow of the District of Utah remanded this case because the ALJ did not sufficiently explain why the opinions of state agency medical consultants were more persuasive than the opinion of a psychological consultative evaluator. The consultative evaluator examined the claimant, while the medical consultants did not. The ALJ explained that the medical consultants knew about the claimant’s substance abuse, while it is not clear that the claimant admitted a history of substance abuse to the examining consultative evaluator.

The ALJ did not explicitly find that the claimant’s impairments were related to substance abuse, nor was there any finding that the claimant’s credibility or character was an issue. Instead, the ALJ deemed the opinion of a consultative evaluator less persuasive because that evaluator did not base their findings on substance abuse.”

Rainey v. SSA (4:26-cv-00049-RAJ-LRL) | Eastern District of Virginia

SSA stipulated to remand on this child case. The major issue here is the lack of a psychological medical expert’s testimony. An ME testified at hearing, but he was an internal medicine doctor. The ALJ, hearing counsel, and the internal medicine ME all agreed that the child’s impairments were primarily psychological. The ALJ stated on the record that he would hold a supplemental hearing and/or send the case for psych ME interrogatories. He did neither and issued an unfavorable decision.

Johnston v. SSA (2:25-cv-14834) | District of New Jersey

The decision addressed Plaintiff’s argument that “The ALJ properly rejected the State agency’s medical determinations because they did not take into account significant evidence submitted at the hearing level but the ALJ nevertheless erred due to the lack of any opinion that supports the physical limitations in the RFC, ultimately yielding a decision that is not supported by substantial evidence.” US Magistrate Judge Stanley R. Chesler found merit in this argument and held the ALJ failed to ensure that “there is sufficient development of the record and explanation of findings to permit meaningful review.”

Vazquez v. SSA (2:25-cv-00033) | Eastern District of North Carolina

US Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II, issued an R&R which was adopted by Louise W. Flanagan, United States District Judge. In the R&R USMJ Numbers found that the ALJ’s proffered reason for declining to find the state agency psychological consultants’ opinions persuasive in full—vagueness—is inapplicable to the limitation to simple instructions and noted that he ALJ offered no other grounds to discredit this restriction nor identified what evidence showed that Vasquez was less limited in understanding and remembering that the consultants found. USMJ Numbers held that, while an ALJ need not adopt all the findings of a medical opinion he deems persuasive, an ALJ cannot assign persuasive value to a medical opinion without addressing material conflicts between that opinion and the RFC.