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.

Grenell v. SSA (5:24-cv-36-AMN) | Northern District of New York

The Northern District of New York reversed and remanded an ALJ’s unfavorable decision for the ALJ’s failure to explain her evaluation of a state agency medical opinion. In finding the opinion persuasive, the ALJ offered only a limited, conclusory, single-sentence. The lack of explanation was particularly problematic as the ALJ’s finding appeared inconsistent with her partial rejection of other medical opinions. In addition to the inadequate opinion evaluation, the Court determined that remand was necessary because the ALJ’s step 5 finding, that Plaintiff could perform work involving detailed instructions, conflicted with her RFC assessment that Plaintiff could only follow simple instructions. By failing to resolve this apparent conflict, the ALJ had committed additional error.

Rivera. v. SSA (1:23-cv-00029-CWD) | District of Idaho

In this case, the Court found the ALJ improperly rejected Plaintiff’s subjective complaints for four reasons: 1) they were not substantiated with objective evidence of her symptoms; 2) she failed to seek “aggressive” treatment; 3) how her daily activities contradicted her testimony and 4) how her pain symptoms were less severe due to her poor work record.

Notably, the Court found “the ALJ failed to explain how a normal gait is inconsistent with Plaintiff’s complaints concerning the severity of her pain.” Id. at *7. “One can have normal gait but simultaneously experience pain.” Id. The Court noted that Plaintiff’s failure to follow dosing instructions for medications did not constitute a legally sufficient reason to reject Plaintiff’s pain testimony. Id at *8. The Court noted that Plaintiff’s daily activities were “punctuated by rest” and were actually consistent with her statements and testimony. Id. at *9.

Thomas v. SSA (4:24-cv-1094-JPC) | Northern District of Ohio

Plaintiff argued that remand was necessary because the ALJ had failed to meet his Step 5 burden of proving Plaintiff capable of performing work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Specifically, the ALJ had relied on vocational testimony that a person limited to “simple instructions” could perform work with reasoning levels of 3. The testimony was plagued by further unresolved inconsistency in that it implied the obsolete occupation of document preparer continued to exist in the national economy. The Commissioner did not attempt to defend the ALJ’s errors, and the Court granted the joint stipulation for remand.

Buchanan v. SSA (1:23-cv-01715-MG-JMS) | Southern District of Indiana

United States Magistrate Judge Mario Garcia granted Plaintiff’s request for relief. He found that the ALJ failed to adequately discuss how the consultative examiner’s opinion was not supported and consistent, and that the ALJ failed to build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and her conclusion. Accordingly, the case was remanded for a new hearing and a new decision.

Andersen v. SSA (8:23-cv-01567) | Middle District of Florida

The Middle District of Florida found that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the Court found the ALJ improperly evaluated the opinion of the client’s treating physician. The Middle District of Florida thus remanded the matter for a new decision.

Cardwell v. SSA (1:23-cv-39-JAR) | Eastern District of Missouri

In this case, Plaintiff argued that the ALJ had improperly rejected multiple medical opinions, which refuted the ALJ’s RFC, without any explanation as to how the opinions were purportedly inconsistent with the record. Plaintiff further argued that the ALJ had likewise failed to provide any explanation as to how the record allegedly supported the ALJ’s own RFC. The Eastern District of Missouri agreed, finding that the ALJ had erred by declining to provide any substantive basis for his conclusory findings.

Additionally, the Court criticized the ALJ’s suggestion that sporadic daily activities were in any way indicative of Plaintiff’s ability to function eight hours a day, five days a week, in a work environment, particularly given that the ALJ had impermissibly disregarded the difficulty and limitations Plaintiff has while attempting those very daily activities. Accordingly, the Court reversed the ALJ’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.

Harriott v. SSA (2:23-cv-00120-JCF) | Northern District of Georgia

This case had previously been remanded due to the ALJ’s failure to properly evaluate the medical opinion evidence, specifically failing to articulate how she considered the consistency factor. Plaintiff argued that the ALJ repeated error in the most recent decision, by declining to consider the consistency of the medical opinion with any of the evidence proffered by other medical sources. The Court agreed, concluding that the ALJ had once again “wholly failed” to explain how she considered the consistency factor in accordance with the regulations. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the ALJ’s decision thus allowing Claimant to have a hearing before a new ALJ.