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.

Elmore v. SSA (3:25-cv-00460-CHL) | Western District of Kentucky

This was a 2022 claim for Title II Disability Income Benefits. The client’s claim was denied initially, as well as upon reconsideration and at a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. The client appealed this denial to the Appeals Council for the Western District of Kentucky in 2026 through an appeal brief written by our team. The Council reviewed our arguments and elected to voluntarily remand the decision of the Administrative Law Judge that the client’s abilities prohibited workplace environments with dust and fumes but then accepted the Vocational Expert ‘s recommendation that she could work in one of those environments.

Lamont v. SSA (5:25-cv-00086-ML) | Northern District of New York

The case was briefed in Federal Court in August of 2025, arguing the following:

1. The ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion of Jeanne Shapiro Ph.D., who performed an agency consultative psychological evaluation, and he failed to explain his omission of mental restrictions she assessed, despite finding the opinion persuasive.
2. The Appeals Council improperly found that an assessment by Bradley Layton M.D., would not have changed the outcome of the decision, resulting in the agency’s failure to explain the supportability and consistency of the opinion in compliance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(b)(2), 416.920c(b)(2).

United States Magistrate Miroslav Lovric scheduled the case for oral argument on March 20, 2026, and—during oral argument—he commented on the excellent job that the OLG hearing staff did documenting the ongoing efforts to obtain evidence from Oneida Indian Nation Health Services. He noted that we received their records three days after the ALJ’s decision was issued, and that the AC refused to remand for the ALJ to consider the report. Judge Lovric announced on the record that he was remanding on this issue alone. On March 24, 2026, he issued a formal written decision granting Plaintiff’s request for relief on the basis our second point of error, and he remanded the case for further proceedings, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Castro v. SSA (2:25-cv-15977-BRM) | District of New Jersey

SSA stipulated to remand this Title XVI case. Over nearly 10 years Plaintiff was denied 3 times (2018, 2021, 2024) by 2 different ALJs and had 2 AC remands (2020, 2023). On the most recent denial, the ALJ held that she could perform three jobs that SSA held were obsolete. He also failed to account for her documented need for an assistive device in his RFC and held that she could perform three jobs that SSA has determined are obsolete.

Murphy v. SSA (2:25-cv-01464-KAJ) | Southern District of Ohio

SSA stipulated to remand this Title II and Title XVI case. The ALJ denied Plaintiff at Step 2. A claim may not be dismissed at Step 2 unless it is “totally groundless” from a medical standpoint. There are five medical source opinions, four from the state consultants at initial and reconsideration – all of whom found Plaintiff’s impairments severe as well – and one from a psychological consultative examiner.  Rather than rely on the opinion of any of these five medical professionals, the ALJ substituted his own lay opinion.