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.

Warner v. SSA (4:21-cv-270) | Eastern District of Arkansas

The District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas reversed and remanded ALJ Ferguson’s Unfavorable Decision for his failure to properly consider a medical opinion, and his failure to appreciate the complex and chronic nature of mental illness. The Court explained that the ALJ’s cherry-picked evidence from periods of improvement impermissibly ignored the manner in which the symptoms of mental illness can fluctuate.  The Court also noted that inconsistencies between the evidence and Plaintiff’s testimony supported, rather than detracted from, his allegations of cognitive decline. Finally, the Court found that the ALJ erred by failing to obtain an updated medical opinion given that the only one in the record was four years old at the time of the decision. These errors rendered the ALJ’s decision insufficient and unsupported.

-Caeden Sehested, Esq.

Tracy-Greek v. SSA (1:21-cv-01022) | Southern District of Indiana

The ALJ determined the claimant’s treating nurse practitioner’s opinion was unpersuasive and that she overestimated the claimant’s limitations regarding sitting, standing, and walking. The District Court determined the ALJ failed to properly consider the consistency and supportability of the nurse practitioner’s opinion under the new regulations for evaluating opinion evidence by ignoring portions of the record that would support a finding of consistency; and completely failed to analyze the supportability of the opinion, resulting in clear error and preventing the court from engaging in any meaningful review. The Court further found the ALJ omitted evidence from his Step Two analysis that directly contradicted his Step Two analysis, resulting in the ALJ improperly evaluating the claimant’s hand limitations by failing to consider it a medically determinable impairment at all. This resulted in a remand for further proceedings.

-Ted Wicklund, Esq.

Leavitt v. SSA (4:21-cv-00187) | District of Idaho

This was a 2018 Title II claim for disability and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) due to lower back pain. Our office appealed Claimant’s denial in Federal Court in 2021 through an appeal brief written by our team. The Magistrate Judge reviewed our arguments and concluded the Administrative Law Judge improperly considered the opinions of the claimant’s physical therapist and the Independent Medical Examiner. Ultimately, the Magistrate Judge decided to reverse the decision of the Social Security Administration and remand the matter for a new hearing.

-Daniel Brady, Esq.

Denny v. SSA (3:21-cv-00242) | Eastern District of Tennessee

Following a case conference with the Court, the Commissioner stipulated to a remand.  Here, the claimant alleged the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinions offered by two consultative examiners regarding her physical and mental impairments.  The ALJ’s failure to properly apply the law when evaluating the probative opinion evidence necessitated remand.

-Melissa DelGuercio, Esq.

Ramirez v. SSA (2:20-cv-04073) | Eastern District of New York

In this 2016 claim for Title II benefits due to spinal disorders and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, we argued that the ALJ violated the then “treating physician rule†by failing to explain why he did not assign any weight to the opinion of the Claimant’s treating physician. The District Court Judge reviewed the arguments set forth by both parties, and concluded that the ALJ committed reversible legal error in his evaluation of the opinion evidence. The case was subsequently remanded back to the Agency for further proceedings, including a new hearing and new decision.

-Christopher Milliman, Esq.

Smith v. SSA (6:22-cv-00047) | Eastern District of Kentucky

This client retained our services in March 2022 for a federal court appeal of his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, due to post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, insomnia, arthritis, stent-left main artery with 98 percent blockage, mild heart attack, high blood pressure, asthma, and tinnitus. The case was briefed in Federal Court in August of 2022 by our team. The U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing, and we agreed. On September 20, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Hanley A. Ingram granted the uncontested motion to remand the case for further proceedings, including a new hearing before an ALJ.

-Julie Atkins, Esq.

Broadland. v. SSA (21-CV-01043) | District of Minnesota

In this case, Plaintiff appealed because the ALJ failed to properly explain why opinion evidence was found unpersuasive pursuant to the regulations. Here, the court found the ALJ failed to consider the supportability factor because the “ALJ’s order never discusses how well the experts supported or explained their opinions.†Id. at *4. The Court found this was legal error requiring remand. Furthermore, the Court found that the ALJ erred in finding that no expert had opined that Plaintiff met or equaled a listing, when in fact, a physician did conclude that the requirements of Listing 11.02 and 12.02 were met. Therefore, remand was appropriate when the record contained inconsistencies that were not resolved by the ALJ. See Scott ex rel. Scott v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 2008).

-Lori Tilley-Beeler, Esq.

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