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 get 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 with you some of our recent case victories with you. Here you can read details directly from our attorneys.

Daniels v. SSA (nyed-1:22-cv-00881) | United States District Court, Eastern District of New York

This client was referred to us in February 2022 for federal court appeal of his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, due to diabetic mononeuropathy, Type 2 diabetes mellitus with other specified complications, bilateral tinnitus, accelerated essential hypertension, arthropathy, mixed hyperlipidemia, constipation, intervertebral disc herniation of the cervical spine, gout, and edema in lower extremities. His claims had been denied initially, on reconsideration, before an ALJ at the hearing level, and before the Appeals Council. The case was briefed in Federal Court in July of 2022 by our team. The U.S. Attorney proposed to voluntarily remand the case for another ALJ hearing, and we agreed.  Although the medical evidence was strong, the record did not contain VE testimony that assumed either the restrictions assessed by the treating source or the agency’s examiner, so the case appeared to lack merit for requesting an outright award of benefits.

-Julie Atkins, Esq.

Moseley v. SSA (sdms-1:21-cv-00201-HSO-LGI) | Southern District of Mississippi

This client was referred to us in 2021 for her Title II claim for disability and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) due to injury of the right foot including fracture of the talus bone, arthritis, fibromatosis, fibroma, plantar fasciitis, and severe pain and weakness. Her claim was denied initially, upon reconsideration, at a hearing before an administrative law judge, and by the Appeals Council. The client appealed this denial in Federal Court in 2022 through an appeal brief written by our team. The ALJ denied the client’s claim on the basis that our client, who had a 15-year work history at the same hospital as a medical laboratory technician, had no continuous 12-month period during which she had not engaged in substantial gainful activity.  Of note, the client was dismissed from her position in 2019 but had worked several shifts in 2020.

Our team successfully argued that the ALJ had prematurely ended his sequential evaluation process analysis at step one by failing to consider whether the client’s post-onset work activity met the criteria of an unsuccessful work attempt as set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1574(c).  The Magistrate Judge reviewed our argument, found that our position was “well-takenâ€, and recommended that this matter be remanded for further proceedings so that the Commissioner could consider whether the client’s post-onset work met the criteria of an unsuccessful work attempt.  The District Judge adopted the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, reversed the decision of the Social Security Administration, and remanded the matter for a new hearing.

-April Carr, Esq.

Cox v. Social Security (2:21-cv-01244-BNW) | United States District Court District of Nevada

This client was referred to us 2019 for her claim for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits due to degenerative disc disease, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. The claim was subsequently denied on reconsideration, hearing, and at the Appeals Council. The client first appealed in Federal Court, upon which the Social Security Administration voluntarily filed a motion to remand the case for a new hearing and decision in 2021. That decision was unfavorable and was denied review at the Appeals Council. The client appealed again in Federal Court in 2021, during which an appeal brief was filed. A judgment was ultimately rendered in June 2022 reversing the denial decision of the Social Security Administration and remanding the case for a new hearing.

-Kaelin Richard, Esq.

Pouncy v. Commissioner of Social Security (lawd-5:2021-cv-00404) | Western District of Louisiana 

This client was referred to us in 2021 for her Title II claim for disability and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Title XVI claim for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). She alleged disability due to vertigo and degenerative disc disease. The client received an unfavorable decision from an Administrative Law Judge on two prior occasions, and appealed the second denial in Federal Court in early 2022 through an appeal brief written by our team. The Magistrate Judge reviewed our arguments and concluded the opinions of medical examiners had not been properly evaluated. 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.

K.J.B. v. Kizakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (No. 1:21-cv-02245-DAC) | Northern District of Ohio

Plaintiff, a 54 year old former retail sales representative and make-up artist, alleged disability beginning December 15, 2018 due to a combination of severe physical and mental impairments, including major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and PTSD. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Plaintiff’s mental impairments to be severe, and crafted a residual functional capacity (RFC) limiting her to performing simple, routine, low stress, non-production pace tasks, and with “superficial and occasional†interactions with supervisors, peers and the public. Accordingly, the ALJ found Plaintiff capable of performing unskilled, medium exertional jobs available in the national economy. Thus, the ALJ determined Plaintiff was not disabled.

In determining Plaintiff’s mental RFC, the ALJ purported to rely on the findings of a non-examining state agency psychological consultant, who opined that while Plaintiff could carry out simple tasks in a work setting, she nonetheless “would need a relatively isolated workstation and supervisory support when learning new tasks.†The consultant also opined that Plaintiff could only have “minimal†interaction with co-workers.

The ALJ found this opinion “persuasive.†In our opening brief, we contended that the RFC did not contain the specific limitations outlined by the consultant, and that the ALJ provided no explanation for why they were not incorporated into the RFC. We also contended that there was simply no indication in the decision that the ALJ tried to reconcile the consultant’s finding of “minimal†interaction with his contrary conclusion that “occasional†interaction was warranted. Finally, we argued that the ALJ’s allowance for both “superficial and occasional†interaction with others was inherently inconsistent.

Ultimately, the Commissioner’s attorneys agreed with our position, and offered a voluntary remand of this case back to the Agency for further proceedings. Subsequently, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case issued an order remanding the case under sentence four of the Social Security Act. In his order, the Magistrate Judge specified that the Appeals Council will instruct the ALJ to reevaluate the agency consultant’s opinion.

-Chris Milliman, Esq.

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