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.

Cota v. SSA (1:25-cv-00119-BT) | Northern District of Texas

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

1. The ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence and is the product of legal error because the ALJ improperly evaluated the medical opinion of Michael Heffernan, Ph.D., pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c and 416.920c.
2. The ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence where the ALJ improperly rejected Plaintiff’s subjective testimony relating to his severe left shoulder impairment.

The U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing, and we agreed. On February 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Rutherford 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.

Malone v. SSA (1:25-cv-00047-CEA-DCP) | Eastern District of Tennessee

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

1. The ALJ limited Plaintiff to light exertion, yet the decision failed to follow the agency’s borderline age policy—as provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563, 416.963 and explained in the POMS at DI 25015.066—which would have directed a finding of disability under Rule 202.06 of the Medical Vocational Guidelines.
2. The ALJ failed to adequately evaluate and sufficiently explain his consideration of the opinion of Sushri Mishra, M.D., who performed the agency’s consultative physical examination. The ALJ’s analysis violates the regulations at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c, and the omission of pertinent restrictions resulted in an RFC that is not supported by substantial evidence.
3. The decision violates 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4) by failing to point to any actual inconsistencies between the subjective allegations—of difficulty carrying a gallon of milk and residuals following knee replacement that limit standing to no more than about ten minutes—and the other evidence in the record, even though a finding of disability would be directed by Rule 201.14 of the Medical Vocational Guidelines, if Plaintiff were limited to sedentary exertion.

On February 4, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin recommended remand on the basis of all three issues. She noted that Defendant moved to remand on the sole issue of whether the higher age category should be applied in this case but maintained, however, that it was unnecessary to include the remaining issues concerning Dr. Mishra’s consultative examination report and evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints as part of the remand. United States Magistrate Judge Poplin agreed with regard to the first issue, but also ruled that – with regard to the second and third issue, the ALJ has failed to produce an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the result, and she recommended that the appropriate remedy was a remand for further proceedings on the basis of all three issues.

On February 17, 2026, United States District Judge, Charles E. Atchley, Jr., adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Boffo v. SSA (3:25-cv-00618-WMC) | Western District of Wisconsin

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

1. The RFC failed to account for moderate mental limitations adopted at step three in the sequential evaluation process, and the ALJ offered no explanation for the discrepancy.
2. The ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion of internal medicine specialist, Kim Ogle, M.D., Plaintiff’s treating primary care provider, and the ALJ failed to adequately explain his consideration of how the factors of supportability and consistency led him to find her assessments to be unpersuasive.
3. The ALJ erred by relying on jobs that do not carry the Commissioner’s burden of proof at the final step in the sequential evaluation process.

The U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing, and we agreed. On February 27, 2026, U.S. District Judge William M. Conley granted the uncontested motion of the parties and remanded the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3), for a new hearing and the issuance of a new decision.

Tarys v. SSA (2:25-cv-10585-NGE-APP) | Eastern District of Michigan

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

1. The ALJ failed to adequately evaluate and sufficiently explain his consideration of the opinion of Martha Pollock, M.D., Plaintiff’s internal medicine specialist. The ALJ’s analysis violates the regulations at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c, and the omission of pertinent restrictions has resulted in an RFC that is not supported by substantial evidence.
2. The denial is based on a return to the job of merchandise manager, which is not a job that Plaintiff ever performed.

On February 16, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti recommended finding in Plaintiff’s favor as to the first allegation based on the ALJ’s inaccurate PFT description and the ALJ’s seemingly mistaken interpretation of the May 2023 neurological examination as to range of motion in the extremities. He suggested that the District Court need not address Plaintiff’s second argument at this time.

On March 3, 2026, U.S. District Judge, Nancy G. Edmunds, adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.