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.

Clemens v. SSA (1:23-cv-00136-UNA) | Western District of New York

This was a 2020 claim that was appealed in the Western District of New York in 2023. We argued that the ALJ committed legal error in his evaluation of the supportability and consistency of his treating physician’s assistant’s medical source opinion, and provided invalid reasons for rejecting the opinion. Specifically, the ALJ cited no evidence in the record to discredit the opinion, nor did she attempt to resolve any evidence that contradicted her conclusion. Assigned counsel for the Commissioner reviewed our brief and offered a voluntary remand for further proceedings.

-Christopher Milliman, Esq.

Reeves v. SSA (2:22-cv-00037) | Middle District of Tennessee

This case arose out of a previous District Court remand finding the ALJ failed to properly account for Plaintiff’s moderate limitations in concentration, persisting or maintaining pace. The ALJ in this case gave great weight to the state agency psychological consultant who found moderate limitations in maintaining concentration, persistence and pace. However, the Court found substantial evidence that did not support the ALJ’s RFC determination. The Court also noted that no hypothetical was posed to the VE to account for an opinion which was given great weight.

-Lori Tilley-Beeler, Esq.

Warner v. SSA (4:21-cv-00495) | District of Idaho

The District of Idaho found that the ALJ’s determination was unsupported by substantial evidence, due to the “somewhat paradoxical logic” employed. Here, the ALJ had discounted one consultative opinion as inconsistent with the record. The ALJ then discounted a treating physician’s opinion by claiming it was inconsistent with the consultative opinion. While it could be possible to “connect the dots” in such a way to make this rationale legitimate, the ALJ did not provide this connection, and the Court declined to do so.

-Matthew McGarry, Esq.

Calhoun v. SSA (1:22-cv-01415) | Northern District of New York

A challenge was brought to the unfavorable decision of ALJ Ba-Yunnus, which found Plaintiff could transfer work skills to other work in the national economy. We argued that the ALJ’s finding was legally erroneous as it was premised on vocational expert testimony offered without the development SSR 82-62 and SSR 82-41 require. Furthermore, the “skills” identified by the vocational expert as transferrable,  were not actually skills at all, as defined by SSA. Nor were the purported acquired skills ever alleged to have been performed by Plaintiff in her past relevant work. Thus, the ALJ had failed to meet his step 5 burden of proving that Plaintiff can perform other work in the national economy. After reviewing these arguments, the Commissioner acquiesced that the ALJ’s decision was flawed and remand was necessary.

-Caeden Sehested, Esq.

Anderson v. SSA (4:22-cv-00273-DTF) | District of Arizona

In this case we argued that the ALJ’s RFC determination was not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to reconcile his psychiatric review technique findings with the limitations he assessed in Plaintiff’s RFC determination. United States Magistrate Judge Angela M. Martinez granted Plaintiff’s request for relief. She noted that the ALJ found marked limitations in interacting with others but failed to explain how he considered this finding in reaching the conclusion that Plaintiff is capable of occasional interaction with co-workers or the public. She entered a final order directing that the case be remanded for further proceedings, including a new ALJ hearing.

-Julie Atkins, Esq.

Rowland v. SSA (1:22-cv-00473-KLL) | Southern District of Ohio

Remand was granted in this Southern District of Ohio case that involved an ALJ who failed to properly evaluate the opinion evidence regarding Plaintiff’s mental impairments. The ALJ crafted an RFC that did not properly account for Plaintiff’s mental limitations.  The Court found that the ALJ improperly rejected both opinions without appropriate evaluation of both the supportability and consistency factors.   Specifically, the Court observed that the ALJ’s rejection of both opinions as being based on subjective complaints or the Plaintiff’s presentation during treatment did not provide substantial evidence to reject the opinions.

-Howard Olinsky, Esq.

Holt v. SSA (5:21-cv-00337) | Middle District of Georgia

Plaintiff argued the ALJ failed to adequately assess findings of physical limitation as evidence by the records including an infectious disease specialist.  The Court agreed, finding the ALJ’s evaluation of these opinions deficient for four reasons: (1) the ALJ’s reference back to an eight-page summary of the entire medical evidence was too vague to permit meaningful judicial review; (2) the findings made by the doctors are consistent with their contemporaneous treatment notes; (3) the ALJ rendered different RFC findings before and after Plaintiff’s 50^th birthday despite little change in condition; and (4) the ALJ improperly cited Plaintiff’s consistent weight to discount an assessment when in fact his weight significantly fluctuated during the period.  For these reasons, the Court remanded.

-Ted Wicklund, Esq.

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