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 sufficiently articulating proper findings for the new regulations on supportability and consistency.  If your client’s decision did not sufficiently analyze supportability and consistency, 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.

Richards v. SSA (2:22-cv-00161) | Eastern District of Virginia

Plaintiff argued the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinions of the claimant’s treating providers regarding the extent of his mental and physical impairments. Further, the ALJ found that Plaintiff could perform other work in the national economy; however, each of those jobs have been deemed by courts to be obsolete. The Commissioner of Social Security agreed that this Eastern District of Virginia case should be remanded for a new hearing.

-Melissa DelGuercio, Esq.

Andrews v. SSA (gand-1:2021-cv-02126) | Northern District of Georgia

Claimant filed for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits due to paranoid schizophrenia. His claim was previously denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ); but was remanded by the Appeals Council. The claim was subsequently denied in a second hearing with the same ALJ and by the Appeals Council. The client appealed in Federal Court.  After briefing the case a favorable judgment was rendered reversing the Commissioner’s Decision and remanding the case for a new hearing with another ALJ.

-Kaelin Richard, Esq.

Terhune v. SSA (kyed-3:2021-cv-00037) | Eastern District of Kentucky

This client retained our services for her Title II claim for Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) due to lupus, type II diabetes, congestive heart disease, hypertension, high cholesterol, depression, and anxiety. We appealed her Appeals Council denial to Federal Court. The District Judge reviewed our arguments and concluded the medical opinions provided by Claimant’s treating providers had not been properly evaluated. Ultimately, the District Judge decided to reverse the decision of the Social Security Administration and remand the matter for a new hearing.

-Daniel Brady, Esq.

Powers v. SSA (5:21-cv-00029) | Western District of Virginia

The District Court for the Western District of Virginia determined that ALJ Crockett’s decision did not comply with the legal standards set forth in SSR 12-2p. In this case, the ALJ had erroneously rejected the claimant’s subjective allegations about the limiting effects of her condition because of a lack of objective medical findings in the record and the fact that her treatment was conservative and aimed at pain control. The Court held that this rationale was insufficient as a matter of law and demonstrated a pervasive misunderstanding of the nature of fibromyalgia. The Court concluded that the ALJ further erred under the old regulations when he declined to apply the relevant factors to weigh the opinion of a treating Nurse Practitioner.

-Caeden Sehested, Esq.

Taveras v. SSA (1:21-cv-06039) | Southern District of New York

Here, the treating physician provided a medical opinion with disabling limitations which was found unpersuasive by the ALJ. The ALJ must evaluate whether the physician’s own records support the opinion and if the record as a whole is consistent with the medical opinion. In this case, the ALJ merely provided a boilerplate statement that the opinion was not supported by the record. Counsel argued that this explanation was not legally sufficient to comply with the regulations. Upon review of Plaintiff’s opening brief, the Commissioner agreed that the case contained legal error and should be remanded for a new hearing and further development.

-Lori Tilley-Beeler, Esq.

De Liso v. SSA (2:20-cv-12309) | District of New Jersey

This claim was heard and decided by an ALJ in March of 2018, which the Appeals Council had reversed in early 2019 pursuant to the Lucia v. SEC decision. Despite this, the Appeals Council took no steps to ensure the same ALJ did not hear the claim a second time. The same ALJ heard and denied Plaintiff’s claim the second time, unsurprisingly. The appeal argued, among other errors, that this ALJ had already heard Plaintiff’s claim, and could not be expected to evaluate the case as if he’d never ruled on it previously. Despite the Supreme Court decidedly striking down the Agency’s waiver defense, the Office of General Counsel continues to advance frivolous waiver arguments across the country. The District of New Jersey held that “a rehearing by the same ALJ—even if that ALJ had by that time been constitutionally appointed—does not cure the Appointments Clause defect present in the initial hearing.â€

-Matthew McGarry, Esq.

Bellar v. SSA (3:21-cv-05933) | Western District of Washington

This was a 2019 claim for Title XVI Supplemental Security Income benefits due to depression, ADHD, PTSD, chronic insomnia, learning disability, hearing loss, and nerve damage. The client appealed to the Western District of Washington Court. In an appeal brief written by our team, we argued that the ALJ committed legal error in her evaluation of the medical opinion evidence. Assigned counsel for the Commissioner reviewed our brief, and offered a voluntary remand for a new hearing and decision. The District Court subsequently issued an order in favor of our client, and remanded the case back to the Agency for further proceedings.

-Christopher Milliman, Esq.

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