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 gets us 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.

Strum v. SSA (21-cv-3781) | Northern District of Illinois

The Court held that an ALJ erred in her evaluation of the claimant’s mental limitations where the ALJ had rejected unanimous medical source opinions, which had found the claimant’s moderate mental limitations would restrict his RFC, and instead found only mild limitations with no RFC impact whatsoever. The Court deduced that in the absence of any relevant evidence to support the ALJ’s finding, it was improperly predicated on her own unqualified opinion. This error alone warranted remand, but the Court made a point to condemn the ALJ’s reliance on Plaintiff’s drug addiction as a reason to reject the medical source opinions in the first instance as well. Upon remand, the ALJ was directed to keep in mind that whether drug or alcohol addiction is a contributing factor to the claimant’s disability is not relevant to the determination unless/until the ALJ first determines that Plaintiff is disabled.

-Caeden Sehested, Esq.

Letourneau v. SSA (8:22-cv-00387) | Middle District of Florida

This was an appeal of a 2019 claim for Title II and Title XVI benefits The Court for the Middle District of Florida reviewed our arguments agreed that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence due to a failure to discuss mental health evidence and find the client’s mental health impairments severe. This matter was therefore remanded for a new decision.

-Daniel Brady, Esq.

Munnings v. SSA (6:21-cv-06283-CJS) | Western District of New York

This was a 2017 claim for Title II Social Security Disability Insurance benefits due to depression and physical impairments. We argued that the ALJ’s RFC determination was unsupported by substantial evidence because he failed to reconcile his own findings of mild limitations in all four areas of mental functioning with the RFC, which contained no mental limitations whatsoever. The District Court judge reviewed the arguments set forth by both parties, and concluded that the ALJ committed legal error by failing to account for the client’s mental limitations when determining her RFC. The Agency’s decision was reversed, and the case was remanded back to the Agency for further proceedings, including a new hearing and new decision.

-Christopher Milliman, Esq.

King v. SSA (2:22-cv-00021-DWL) | District of Arizona

In this case, Plaintiff appealed the ALJ’s denial of benefits arguing the ALJ did not properly explain why the record was inconsistent with an opinion of the state agency psychological consultant. Specifically, the record contained significant mental health treatment after the opinion of the state agency consultant was rendered. The Court was unable to establish whether the ALJ considered the mental health evidence that occurred after the consultant’s opinion. While the Court recognized that a timing gap is assumed after a state agency consultant’s opinion is rendered, “in light of the timing gap, it was incumbent upon the ALJ to explain why the newly available records were consistent with Dr. Zuess’s opinions.” *7. The failure to consider the records undermined the ALJ’s consistency analysis requiring remand.

-Lori Tilley-Beeler, Esq.

Solomon v. SSA (1:21-cv-00816) | Middle District of Pennsylvania

The claimant appealed in Federal Court contending, in part, that the ALJ’s RFC determination was the product of legal error where he failed to properly evaluate the opinion of Plaintiff’s long-time treating physician regarding the claimant’s mental impairments. The court agreed and granted remand.

-Howard Olinsky, Esq.

Wagner v. SSA (ILND-1:20-cv-07028) | Northern District of Illinois

Claimant alleged disability on the basis of degenerative joint disease, cervical spine; COPD; obstructive sleep apnea; chronic heart failure; and cardiac dysrhythmias. We argued that the ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion of the treating physician Santosh K. Gill. On March 29, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz agreed and held that the ALJ has an overarching responsibility to explain his decision regarding the connection between a medical opinion and the RFC, with enough thoroughness and clarity as is necessary for the Court to assess whether the ALJ’s conclusions in the RFC are supported by substantial evidence. On this basis, she remanded the case for further proceedings.

-Julie Atkins, Esq.

Ricks v. SSA (1:21-cv-00942-JHR) | District of New Mexico

In this case, the ALJ provided a number of “fluff” restrictions within the RFC, failing to account for (or explain the absence of) limitations relating to his Step 2 findings. The Court found that, for purposes of disability determinations, a “limitation” to two hours of attention and concentration is effectively no limitation because all jobs require workers to maintain attention and concentration for two hours at a time. The Court also found, over the Commissioner’s complaints, that a “moderate limitation” is not equivalent to “no limitation.” The Court reversed due to the unexplained absence of mental restrictions.

-Matthew McGarry, Esq.

Bates v. SSA. (1:23-cv-00071-REB) | District of Colorado

The Commissioner agreed to stipulate to remand after Plaintiff argued the ALJ provided vague and inaccurate analysis around a doctor’s disabling functional limitation opinion. Here, the ALJ discounted the opinion as the doctor did not physically examine the Plaintiff, but Plaintiff pointed out that these telehealth visits were in the early stages of the pandemic and Plaintiff should not be punished for them, and that the doctor had direct knowledge of other significant exams from other providers as well as significant imaging. Plaintiff also argued the ALJ’s statement the opinion was “inconsistent with the objective medical evidence, including normal findings on musculoskeletal, respiratory, and cardiovascular exams” was unhelpful when the record showed objective findings throughout. Finally, Plaintiff argued the Step 4 determination was unsupported by substantial evidence as the ALJ relied on non-expert testimony. Here, Plaintiff required a service dog, and the VE testified a “service animal is considered an accommodation under the ADA” and she “[doesn’t] address accommodations in terms of my testimony expertly, so I wouldn’t identify that for the Court.” T 72. Thus, the ALJ relied on non-expert testimony to determine Plaintiff could perform past work.

–Ted Wicklund, Esq.

Have a question or comment? Write it below and we’ll respond to you as soon as possible!