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.

Shad v. SSA (2:25-00057-WLC) | Middle District of Tennessee

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

1. The RFC failed to properly account for mental limitations adopted at step three in the sequential evaluation process, and the ALJ offered no explantion for the discrepancy.
2. The ALJ failed to adequately evaluate and sufficiently explain his consideration of the opinion of Justin Garrison, M.D., Plaintiff’s treating source. 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.

The U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing, and we agreed. On March 16, 2026, U.S. District Judge Clifton L. Corker 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.

Simon v. SSA (1:23-cv-01802-SES) | Middle District of Michigan

The case was briefed in Federal Court in February of 2024, arguing the following:

1. The ALJ violated agency regulations by failing to properly consider and explain his analysis of the opinion of Ronald Pyram, M.D., Plaintiff’s endocrinologist.
2. The ALJ violated agency regulations by failing to properly consider and explain his analysis of the opinion of Daniel Upton, M.D., Plaintiff’s ophthalmologist.

On February 16, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, finding that the ALJ “did not accurately summarize” the evidence from Dr. Pyram, resulting in a decision which was not supported by substantial evidence. Since he found remand warranted on the basis of the first claim of error, Magistrate Judge Caraballo did not reach Plaintiff’s second issue. He granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Moore v. SSA (8:25-cv-00619-EA) | District of Maryland

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

1. The ALJ failed to comply with the order of the Appeals Council regarding the evaluation of Plaintiff’s migraine headaches.
2. The RFC is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate and adequately explain his consideration of the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating source, Allison Koutsandreas, FNP-BC.

On March 16, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Erin Aslan granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, finding that remand is warranted here because the ALJ failed to (1) “further consider the claimant’s migraine headaches” and associated symptoms, (2) “[g]ive particular consideration to the types of treatment the claimant pursued, reasons for declining treatment . . . , and her response to treatment,” or (3) further consider “the claimant’s maximum residual functional capacity and provide appropriate rationale with specific references to evidence of record in support of the assessed limitations,” as instructed by the Appeals Council. She also held that, in assessing Plaintiff’s symptoms related to these subjective statements, the ALJ cited the “objective medical evidence” in the record but did not, however, “build an accurate and logical bridge” between the evidence and his conclusion. She granted Plaintiff’s request for relief, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Guzman v. SSA (1:25-cv-00009-RJS) | District of Utah

We challenged the ALJ’s evaluation of the consultative examiner’s opinion and argued that there was not a sufficient or meaningful articulation of the ALJ’s evaluation of supportability or consistency. In response, Defendant attempted to justify the ALJ’s deficient evaluation by looking to the decision as a whole. The MJ soundly rejected this and wrote, “Where Agency regulations specifically require an ALJ to ‘explain how [he] considered the supportability and consistency factors for a medical source’s medical opinions,’ the ALJ’s failure to do so here was error.”