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.

Smith v. SSA (1:20-cv-00515-REP) | District of Idaho

In a case involving a younger individual, who had been denied four times previously, the District of Idaho granted a remand. The Court’s order held that the ALJ’s Step 2 severity finding was unsupported by substantial evidence, where that finding relied on cherry-picked notes, did not accurately convey the claimant’s vacillating mental health and did not consider the claimant’s inability to afford counseling. The Court additionally rejected the ALJ’s notion that the treating doctor’s opinion was “clearly based on subjective complaints and not objective findings†where the ALJ’s imagination was the only evidence supporting that finding. ALJ’s may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but may not fabricate inconsistencies to deny a claim.

-Matthew McGarry, Esq.

Bluhm v. SSA (5:21-cv-00389) | Western District of Texas

This was a 2018 Title II claim for a Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) due to anxiety disorder, ADHD, bipolar disorder, back problems, depression, insomnia, and vision problems. In 2021, the client appealed in Federal Court through an appeal brief written by our team. The Magistrate Judge reviewed our arguments and heard oral arguments from both parties. The Magistrate Judge concluded the Administrative Law Judge erroneously found the client’s low back pain and degenerative disc disease non-severe. 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.

Edens v. SSA (21-cv-174) | Northern District of Oklahoma

The District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma reversed and remanded ALJ Stewart’s Unfavorable Decision because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical source opinion from the Plaintiff’s primary care provider. The Court explained that the plain language of the new regulations makes clear that the ALJ must describe how he or she considered the factors of consistency and supportability. The ALJ’s failure to do so in this case left the Court unable to discern how, or even whether, the ALJ evaluated the limitations the provider assessed. Rejecting the Commissioner’s argument that the ALJ may implicitly comply with the regulations by summarizing evidence, the Court concluded that a summary of treatment notes fails to meet the articulation requirements and the Unfavorable Decision was therefore not supported by substantial evidence.

-Caeden Sehested, Esq.

Sanchez v. SSA (5:21-cv-00544-NAM) | Northern District of New York

This case involved an appeal of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision denying Sanchez’s application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Sanchez’s appeal was based, in part, upon the ALJ’s error in evaluating opinion evidence from Social Security’s own consultative examiner as well as her own treating physicians pursuant to the current regulations. Specifically, an ALJ is required to discuss how persuasive each medical opinion is and whether or not the opinion was supported by the provider’s own examinations and records and if the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. Here, the Agency’s own consultative examiner, as well as her own treating physicians, found Sanchez to have significant mental limitations that would interfere with her ability to perform work-related activities. However, the ALJ rejected these opinions without discussing supportability. The District Judge ruled in favor of Sanchez, finding that the ALJ erroneously evaluated the medical opinions and found that the ALJ’s Decision was based upon legal error for failing to follow the Regulations with regard to the evaluation of opinion evidence, specifically with regard to the factor of supportability.

-Lori Tilley-Beeler, Esq.

Butts v. SSA (1:21-cv-00203) | District of Idaho

The District of Idaho granted a remand after concluding that the ALJ improperly evaluated the claimant’s subjective complaints related to her lumbar pain, contending there existed a lack of objective medical evidence to support her claim. The Court concluded the ALJ mischaracterized the objective evidence, her ability to afford treatment, and the extent of the claimant’s daily activities. This mischaracterized evidence was improperly used to reject the opinion of the claimant’s treating orthopedic provider.

-Melissa DelGuercio, Esq.

Wilson v. SSA (5:21-cv-00135-BO) | Eastern District of North Carolina

This was a concurrent SSI and SSD case in 2021, where the client had mental health impairments. There were four doctors’ opinions in the record discussing his limitations. The ALJ’s analysis was particularly problematic as the doctors opined that the claimant was restricted in his ability to interact with coworkers, supervisors, and the public in a work setting, though the ALJ only found a limitation regarding interaction with the public. After our office briefed and an orally argued the case, the District Court concluded that the ALJ’s analysis of the mental health opinions was insufficient to provide substantial evidence to support the decision, and he remanded the case for the SSA to reconsider whether the claimant was actually not disabled. The District Court even stated in the Final Judgement that neither the ALJ’s discussion of the evidence nor the evidence itself supported the ALJ’s conclusion.

-Andrew Flemming, Esq.

Solis v. SSA (1:21-cv-00285) | Western District of Texas

This was a 2017 claim for Title II Social Security Disability Insurance and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income benefits due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema. In 2021, the client appealed the Agency’s final decision in the Western District of Texas Court, Our team argued that the ALJ committed legal error in her evaluation an opinion rendered by Plaintiff’s treating pulmonologist. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the arguments set forth by both parties, and concluded that the ALJ failed to comply with the new Regulations requiring proper articulation of how the consistency factor of the treating pulmonologist’s disabling opinion was considered. The District Court Judge subsequently affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s decision, the Agency’s decision was reversed, and the case was remanded back to the Agency for further proceedings, including a new hearing and new decision.

-Christopher Milliman, Esq.

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