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.

Orcutt v. SSA (2:22-cv-01870-BNW) | District of Nevada

After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded this case for a new hearing, the ALJ again denied Plaintiff’s claim for benefits for the time period of June 19, 2014 through June 12, 2022. Here, the ALJ erred in failing to apply the correct Listings to Plaintiff’s claim. Because her claim was filed in 2016, Listing 1.04A should have been applied to her case instead of Listings 1.15 and 1.18. Further, the ALJ erred in calculating Plaintiff’s past relevant work as an accounting clerk was outside of the 15 year period prescribed by the regulations and relevant case law. The Court noted that had Plaintiff’s past work as an accounting clerk been excluded from her past relevant work, she could have been found disabled from her alleged onset date of June 19, 2014 because no past relevant work would have been found.

-Lori Tilley-Beeler, Esq.

Taylor v. SSA (KYWD 3:23-cv-00321) | Western District of Kentucky

The case was briefed in Federal Court in November of 2023 by our team, arguing that (1) the ALJ committed legal error by failing to properly evaluate and explain his analysis of the opinion of Peter Urda, D.O., who performed the agency’s consultative evaluation and (2) the ALJ’s finding – that there are jobs (document preparer, addresser and tube operator) existing in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform – was unsupported and erroneous. The U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing, and we agreed. On December 12, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Colin H. Lindsay granted the parties’ motion to remand and entered an order under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) remanding the claim for a new hearing and the issuance of a new decision.

-Julie Atkins, Esq.

Vega v. SSA (3:23-cv-801-JFS) | Middle District of Pennsylvania

Plaintiff sought judicial review of an Unfavorable Decision by ALJ Grossman in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff argued that the ALJ’s decision was internally inconsistent in that the RFC for sedentary work conflicted with the ALJ’s evaluation of medical opinion evidence. Specifically, the ALJ assessed a sedentary RFC, which necessitates prolonged sitting, despite conceding that Plaintiff has, at least, moderate limitations in her ability to perform prolonged sitting. Since vocational testimony established that the inability to sit for prolonged periods renders Plaintiff disabled, the ALJ’s inconsistent findings could not be considered harmless. The Commissioner made no attempt to argue otherwise, and conceded that remand was necessary.

-Caeden Sehested, Esq.

Hebert v. SSA (22-226-SDD-EWD) | Middle District of Louisiana

In this case, the ALJ found no severe musculoskeletal impairments, despite record evidence including significant disc disease, positive straight leg raises, notations of markedly antalgic gait, and the use of crutches on occasion. The Court found it unclear whether the ALJ applied the correct standard at Step 2, as the ALJ made multiple references to Listing level impairments while supposedly evaluating the claimant’s impairments under the de minimis standard. Remand was warranted based on the application of this heightened standard at Step 2.

-Matthew McGarry, Esq.

Roling v. SSA (2:23-cv-00039) | District of Utah

The Court found the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical opinion of Plaintiff’s psychologist Dr. Richard Potts which was harmful error requiring remand. Here, the Court reasoned it could not determine what the ALJ was referring to when he stated Dr. Potts’s opinion was “not supported by objective medical evidence” when there was no citation to any of said evidence, with the Court stating the ALJ’s “global reference to the record” made tracing the ALJ’s reasoning “nearly impossible.” (citations omitted).

-Ted Wicklund, Esq.

Svetich v. SSA (0:22-cv-61000) | Southern District of Florida

The client appealed this denial in Federal Court in 2022 through an appeal brief written by our team. The Southern District of Florida reviewed our arguments and found the ALJ failed to develop the record regarding the extent of the client’s back and shoulder injuries. The Southern District of Florida thus remanded the matter for a new decision.

-Daniel Brady, Esq.

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