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.

Ayres v. SSA (MAD 1:25-cv-11690-AK) | District of Massachusetts

The case was briefed in Federal Court in December 2025 by our team, arguing as follows:

1. The ALJ failed to adequately evaluate and sufficiently explain his analysis of the opinion of Charles Cassidy, M.D., Plaintiff’s treating orthopedic surgeon. The ALJ’s analysis violates 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c, and the omission of restrictions assessed by Dr. Cassidy has resulted in an RFC that is not supported by substantial evidence.
2. The ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff has transferable skills is flawed, and disability is directed, because Rule 202.00(f), Medical Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, clarifies, that—for a finding of transferability of skills to light work for persons of advanced age who are age 60 or older—there must be very little, if any, vocational adjustment required in terms of tools, work processes, work settings, or the industry.

The U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing, and we agreed. On December 11, 2025, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley granted the uncontested motion of the parties and remanded the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for a new hearing and the issuance of a new decision.

Stith v. SSA (MDD 1:25-cv-000094-DRM) | District of Maryland

The case was briefed in Federal Court in July of 2025, arguing that the ALJ’s mental RFC is not supported by substantial evidence because she failed to properly evaluate the opinion of the agency’s examining psychologist Tyler Calabrese, Psy.D.

United States Magistrate Judge Douglas R. Miller ruled in Plaintiff’s favor on December 15, 2025. He determined ALJ error and held that, although the ALJ complied with applicable regulations regarding the factor of consistency, the ALJ did not adequately articulate her evaluation of the factor of supportability. Because the ALJ’s cursory analysis did not build a logical bridge between the evidence and the ALJ’s conclusions, U.S. Magistrate Judge Miller found that meaningful judicial review was frustrated.

He remanded the case for the ALJ to properly articulate consideration of the supportability of the opinion of Dr. Calabrese. Accordingly, U.S. Magistrate Judge Miller granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Claytor v. SSA (VAWD 7:25-cv-000038-MFU) | Western District of Virginia

The case was briefed in Federal Court in June of 2025, arguing:

1. The ALJ erred by failing to explain how she reconciled moderate restrictions in
   concentration, persistence and pace and moderate restrictions in interacting
   with others—established in the “B” criteria at step three of the sequential
   evaluation process—with her omission of corresponding limitations in the RFC
   determination.
2. The ALJ did not provide a proper supportability and consistency analysis of the
   opinion of Nurse Practitioner Amy Roberts, as required by 20 C.F.R. §
   404.1520c(b)(2), depriving the ALJ’s decision of substantial evidence and
   frustrating meaningful review.

Senior United States District Judge Michael F. Urbanski ruled in Plaintiff’s favor on January 8, 2026. He determined ALJ error and held that the ALJ erred when she did not “build the logical bridge” between her finding at Step 3 of the evaluation that Quentin has a moderate impairment in his ability to maintain concentration, persistence, and pace, and her lack of explanation as to whether or how she considered the limitation in arriving at Quentin’s RFC. Because U.S. District Judge Urbanski found it proper to remand this case based on the faulty RFC determination, Plaintiff’s additional allegation of error were not addressed. He granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Riffe v. SSA (5:25-CV-00265) | Eastern District of Kentucky

The ALJ failed to provide an adequate basis for rejecting a psychological consultative examiner’s medical opinion regarding Plaintiff’s “B” criteria as required by 20 C.F.R.§ 416.920c(b)(2).

The ALJ failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s primary care provider’s medical opinion regarding Plaintiff’s decreased ability to sit, stand, track moving objects, judge distances and use depth perception and need for frequent breaks as required by 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(b)(2).

The US Attorney proposed a voluntary remand of the case for another ALJ hearing, and we agreed.  On December 16, 2025, United District Court Judge, Danny C. Reeves, granted the uncontested motion of the parties, reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded it for further proceedings consistent with sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).