Stephen P. v. Bisignano (D.N.J. June 12, 2025) - Waiver of right to counsel, duty to develop the record for unrepresented claimant, requirements for legal representatives, younger claimants, medical opinions, subjective complaints
            
              Regular price
              
              
                
                  $75.00
                
                Sale
              
            
          
Stephen P. v. Bisignano, Case No. 2:24-CV-10888 (D.N.J. June 12, 2025) (Order by U.S. District Judge Jamel K. Semper)
Briefs for purchase: Plaintiff’s Brief and remand order
Topics addressed:
- 
Right to Counsel
 - 
Waiver of right to counsel
 - 
Requirements for legal representatives
 - 
Special rules for young claimants under age 25
 - 
Special rules for claimants under age 25 – extra help
 - 
ALJ’s duty to develop the record for unrepresented claimant
 - 
Due process violation – not scheduling supplemental hearing as promised
 - 
RFC – work environment is different from medical clinic or home environment
 - 
Medical opinions – supportability
 - 
Medical opinions – consistency
 - 
Failure to obtain mental health treatment
 - 
Subjective symptoms – treatment regimen
 - 
Testimony of lay witnesses
Rulings addressed:
 
- 
Social Security Ruling 85-15
 - 
Social Security Ruling 11-2p
 
Issues briefed:.
1) The ALJ failed to obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver of Stephen P.’s right to counsel and he was prejudiced by his lack of counsel.
2) The ALJ committed reversible error in not scheduling a second hearing as promised to the unrepresented claimant and his mother.
3) The ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion of Dr. Kirschner, who examined Stephen P. post-hearing, at the ALJ’s specific request.
4) The ALJ’s reasons for not crediting Stephen P.’s subjective complaints and the statements of his mother are not supported by substantial evidence.
Court decision:
After Plaintiff briefed the merits, the Commissioner chose not to defend the ALJ’s decision and instead, sought a voluntary remand. The parties negotiated the remand terms and the court remanded for further proceedings.