{"title":"Winning Federal Court Briefs","description":"","products":[{"product_id":"summary-of-briefs-for-sale","title":"Summary of Briefs for Sale (Download link in description)","description":"\u003ch1\u003eClick the link \u003ca href=\"https:\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/Summary_of_Winning_Briefs_for_Sale_with_TOC-1.pdf?v=1757447799\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"\u003ehere\u003c\/a\u003e\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e to download the summary!!\u003c\/h1\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43478249177285,"sku":"","price":0.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/download_2.jpg?v=1715362322"},{"product_id":"plaintiffs-brief-william-n-v-kijakazi-no-4-20-cv-1422-cdp-2022-wl-832328-e-d-mo-mar-21-2022-decision-by-u-s-district-judge-catherine-d-perry","title":"[William N.] v. Kijakazi (E.D. Mo. Mar. 21, 2022) - migraine headaches, RFC - reliance on outdated assessments of the State agency medical consultants","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 39\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e[William N.] v. Kijakaz\u003c\/em\u003ei, No. 4:20 CV 1422 CDP, 2022 WL 832328 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 21, 2022)\u003c\/strong\u003e (Decision by U.S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs Included: \u003c\/strong\u003e Plaintiff’s Brief, Plaintiff’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, and Plaintiff’s Reply Brief\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\u003c\/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eListing - medical equivalence\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eALJ must build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - lack of support for findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - reliance on outdated assessments of the State agency medical consultants \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eRFC - limitations from migraine \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eheadaches \u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003eSubjective complaints - required findings\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSubjective complaints –  improvement does not equal the ability to work\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMigraine headaches\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 19-4p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ failed to properly evaluate the impact of Plaintiff’s migraine headaches \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eon his ability to work.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s RFC assessment, which is based solely on the outdated assessment of a State agency nonexamning medical consultant, is not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAfter full briefing, the court remanded for further proceedings.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43488505004229,"sku":"","price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612.jpg?v=1715264582"},{"product_id":"arakas-v-comm-r-of-soc-sec-983-f-3d-83-4th-cir-2020-decision-by-circuit-judge-wynn-in-which-chief-judge-gregory-and-circuit-judge-harris-joined","title":"Arakas v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 983 F.3d 83 (4th Cir. 2020) - Seminal fibromyalgia case","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 14\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eA\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cem\u003erakas v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.\u003c\/em\u003e, 983 F.3d 83 (4th Cir. 2020)\u003c\/strong\u003e (Decision by Circuit Judge Wynn, in which Chief Judge Gregory and Circuit Judge Harris joined)\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:\u003c\/strong\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eBrief of the Appellant and \u003c\/span\u003eAppellant's Reply Brief\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e  \n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed:  \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eRFC - ALJ must build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eTreating physician (old law) - good cause\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eImproper substitution of medical opinion by the ALJ \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSubjective complaints - improper focus on objective evidence  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSubjective complaints – daily activities\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSubjective complaints – treatment regimen\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eEvaluation of depression\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eEvaluation of fibromyalgia\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eFibromyalgia - objective medical evidence not needed to establish impairment \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eFibromyalgia – waxing and waning nature; longitudinal record must be \u003c\/span\u003econsidered\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eWaiver - failure to raise an issue before the district court\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eCommissioner's brief -  misstatement of record\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSubstantial evidence standard – mischaracterizing\/misstating the record\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eRemand for award of benefits - entitlement clear from the record\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eRemand for award of benefits - delay\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e Rulings addressed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-2p (old law)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 12-2p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e1)  The ALJ’s reasons for according “little weight” to the opinion of Dr. Harper, A\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eppellant’s long time treating rheumatologist, are not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e  The ALJ reversibly erred by failing to properly assess the severity of Appellant’s subjective complaints of pain and fatigue. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIn a fibromyalgia case of first impression, the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded for an award of benefits, agreeing that the ALJ erred in discrediting Appellant’s subjective complaints of pain and fatigue (“fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease, and carpal tunnel syndrome have been the primary sources of her symptoms”) and in according little weight to the opinion of her treating physician. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 89, 92. The Fourth Circuit joined other circuits in recognizing the unique nature of fibromyalgia: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eA growing number of circuits have recognized fibromyalgia’s unique nature and have accordingly held that ALJs may not discredit a claimant’s subjective complaints regarding fibromyalgia symptoms based on a lack of objective evidence substantiating them.\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSee, e.g., Johnson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 597 F.3d at 412, 414 (1st Cir.); \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreen-Younger\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 335 F.3d at 108 (2d Cir.); \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRogers\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 486 F.3d at 248 (6th Cir.); \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSarchet\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 78 F.3d at 307 (7th Cir.); \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrosnahan\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 336 F.3d at 677-78 (8th Cir.); \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eRevels v. Berryhill\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 874 F.3d 648, 666 (9th Cir. 2017). \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eToday, we join those circuits by holding that ALJs may not rely on objective medical evidence (or the lack thereof) — even as just one of multiple factors — to discount a claimant’s subjective complaints regarding symptoms of fibromyalgia or some other disease that does not produce such evidence. Objective indicators such as normal clinical and laboratory results simply have no relevance to the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eseverity, persistence, or limiting effects of a claimant’s fibromyalgia, based on the current medical understanding of the disease. If considered at all, such evidence — along with consistent trigger-point findings — should be treated as evidence \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003esubstantiating \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ethe claimant’s impairment. We also reiterate the long-standing law in our circuit that disability claimants are entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the severity, persistence, and limiting effects of their symptoms.  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBecause the ALJ’s evaluation of [Appellant’s] symptoms was based on an incorrect legal standard as well as a critical misunderstanding of fibromyalgia, we conclude that it was erroneous. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/blockquote\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 15\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 97-98 (\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eciting Johnson v. Astrue\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 597 F.3d 409, 412 (1st Cir. 2010);\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreen-Younger v. Barnhart\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 335 F.3d 99, 108-09 (2d Cir. 2003); \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eRogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e., 486 F.3d 234, 248 (6th Cir. 2007); \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSarchet v. Chater\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c\/em\u003e 78 F.3d 305, 306 (7th Cir. 1996); \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrosnahan v. Barnhart\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 336 F.3d 671, 678 (8th Cir. 2003)). Thus, the court found that the ALJ “improperly increased her burden of proof” by effectively requiring her subjective descriptions of her symptoms to be supported by objective medical evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId. \u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 96. (citation omitted). \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe court noted fibromyalgia’s unique characteristics as a disease whose “symptoms are entirely subjective,” with the exception of trigger-point evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId. \u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 96. Patients usually have a full range of motion, no joint swelling, as well as normal muscle strength and neurological reactions. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e. (citations omitted). However, the court noted the ALJ relied principally on those very results in discounting Appellant’s complaints as inconsistent with the objective evidence and erred by “requiring objective evidence ‘for a disease that eludes such measurement,’ which was doubly erroneous and particularly egregious since Dr. Harper, the treating physician, had explicitly emphasized that fibromyalgia typically did not produce clinical and laboratory abnormalities.\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e(citation omitted). \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoreover, the court found such objective evidence was present in this case, because Dr. Harper, Appellant’s treating physician, made “consistent trigger-point findings”—\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ei.e.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, tenderness in specific sites on the body — which courts have recognized as the only “objective medical evidence of fibromyalgia.”\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 96-97 (\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eciting Brosnahan\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 336 F.3d at 678;\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eJohnson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 597 F.3d at 412). The court found the ALJ’s error reflects “a pervasive misunderstanding of the disease.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 97 (\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eciting Sarch\u003c\/em\u003eet, \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e78 F.3d at 306). \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIn addition, the court found the ALJ failed to comply with SSR 12-2p which recognizes that “symptoms of [fibromyalgia] can wax and wane so that a person may have ‘bad days and good days’” and that the Ruling requires ALJs to “consider a longitudinal record whenever possible” when evaluating a disability claim based on fibromyalgia. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 101. Here, however, the ALJ failed to appreciate the waxing and waning nature of fibromyalgia and to consider the longitudinal record of Appellant’s \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003esymptoms as a whole, in explaining his reasons for discrediting her subjective complaints. Specifically, the ALJ selectively pointed to treatment notes, which described her fibromyalgia symptoms as moderate and ignoring notes showing “persistent pain associated with fibromyalgia,” “intractable cervical pain,” “exquisite tenderness,” and “a significant worsening of pain symptoms,” which made her physical capacities “extremely limited.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 16\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe court specifically addressed the standard of review, acknowledging that in performing substantial evidence review of the ALJ’s findings, it was not proper to undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute its judgment for the ALJ’s; however the court also stated: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYet even under this deferential standard, we do not “reflexively rubber- stamp an ALJ’s findings.”\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eLewis\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 858 F.3d at 870. To pass muster, ALJs must “build an accurate and logical bridge” from the evidence to their conclusions. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eMonroe v. Colvin\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 826 F.3d 176, 189 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eClifford v. Apfel\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000)).\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/blockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 95 (\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eciting Lewis v. Berryhill\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c\/em\u003e 858 F.3d 858, 861 (4th Cir. 2017)). Where, as here, the ALJ selectively cites from the record, has “cherry-picked” from the record to support his conclusions, or has “misstated or mischaracterized” material facts, “a decision based on such errors can hardly be supported by substantial evidence.”\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 98. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe court also concluded that the ALJ applied an erroneous legal standard in discrediting the subjective complaints of pain by requiring that they be supported by objective medical evidence:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSince the 1980s, we have consistently held that “while there must be objective medical evidence of some condition that could reasonably produce the pain, there need not be objective evidence of the pain itself or its intensity.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eWalker v. Bowen\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 889 F.2d 47, 49 (4th Cir. 1989); \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003esee also Craig\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 76 F.3d at 592-93; \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eHines\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 453 F.3d at 563-65. Rather, a claimant is “entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the second part of the test.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHines\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 453 F.3d at 565. Here, the ALJ disregarded this longstanding precedent and the agency’s own policy by improperly discounting [Appellant’s] subjective complaints of pain and fatigue, based largely on the lack of objective medical evidence substantiating her statements. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/blockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 95-96 (\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eciting Craig v. Chater\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 76 F.3d 585, 592-93 (4th Cir. 1996); \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eHines v. Barnhar\u003c\/em\u003et\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 453 F.3d 559, 563-65 (4th Cir. 2006)). The court further found that the ALJ’s discrediting of the subjective complaints was not only legally erroneous, but also unsupported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the ALJ erred by (1) selectively citing evidence from the record as well as misstating and m\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eischaracterizing material facts; (2) finding her complaints to be inconsistent with her daily activities; and (3) failing to consider fibromyalgia's unique characteristics when reviewing the medical records. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e. at 98. “Each of these factual errors undermines the ALJ's conclusion that [Appellant] was not disabled.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId. \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 17\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ further erred in assessing Appellant’s daily activities; in assessing disability, the ALJ was required to consider not just the type of claimant’s daily activities, but also extent to which she could perform them, and he failed to do so. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 100. The ALJ selectively cited evidence concerning tasks which she was capable of performing and improperly disregarded her qualifying statements, and failed to “build an accurate and logical bridge” from the evidence to his conclusion. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e(citations omitted). Moreover, the ALJ provided no explanation as to how the daily activities showed she could persist through an eight-hour workday five days a week with sustained work activities as required by SSR 96-8p, and merely stated in a conclusory manner that her activities were “fully consistent” with his RFC assessment.\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdditionally, the Fourth Circuit held that the ALJ erred by discrediting the subjective complaints based partly on a “conservative course of treatment” without narcotic painkillers after 2011, but only antidepressants and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory pain relievers, because her doctors’ treatment decisions were wholly consistent with how fibromyalgia is treated generally, and Appellant cannot be faulted “for failing to pursue non-conservative treatment options where none exist.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 102 (citation omitted). The court noted that under SSR 16-3p “[p]ersistent attempts to obtain relief of symptoms, such as increasing dosages and changing medications, trying a variety of treatments, [or] referrals to specialists, . . . may be an indication that an individual’s symptoms are a source of distress and may show that they are intense and persistent” and that she had made each of those very attempts over the years. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThus, the ALJ’s finding of inconsistency between her subjective complaints and her treatment record was erroneous. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eWhile the Fourth Circuit found that Appellant waived appellate review of her argument regarding the weight accorded to her treating physician’s opinion by failing to assert it as a specific objection to the Report and Recommendation, it relied on \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eThomas v. Arn\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e, 474 U.S. 140, 155, (1985) to hold that discretionary review of the waived issue was warranted.\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eat 103. The court noted that in \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eThomas\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e, the Supreme Court held that “because the rule [that a failure to file timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report constitutes a waiver of appellate review] is a nonjurisdic-tional waiver provision, the Court of Appeals may excuse the default in the interests of justice, and concluded that “in some cases, such as this one, we may also “excuse the default in the interests of justice.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eDiscretionary review was warranted as no prejudice or procedural unfairness would result from review, the issue involved a legal question whose resolution did not require additional factfinding, the issue had been adequately briefed by both parties, and proper disposition of the issue was beyond doubt. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eat 105-06.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eThe court concluded that, properly applying the former treating physician rule, Dr. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eHarper’s opinion as to the severity, persistence, and limiting effects of Appellant’s impairments due to fibromyalgia was entitled to controlling weight because he diagnosed her fibromyalgia based on consistent findings of diffuse trigger points, in accordance with the diagnostic criteria of the American College of Rheumatology, his opinion was not contradicted by other substantial evidence in the record, and his opinion was consistent with his 20 years’ worth of treatment notes and other physicians’ medical findings.\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eat 107. The court also found the ALJ erred by improperly substituting his own opinion for Dr. Harper’s based on his own lay views of what an MRI could demonstrate, as ALJs may not draw their own conclusions from medical imaging, as they lack the expertise to interpret it.\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eat 108. The ALJ further erred by according more weight to the state agency consultants’ opinions than the opinion of Dr. Harper, as given the unique nature of fibromyalgia, its symptoms cannot be properly assessed and verified by a non-treating or non-examining source. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eat 110-11 (citation omitted)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eIn determining that remand for award of benefits was warranted, the Fourth Circuit cited its authority to award disability benefits without remand where the record clearly establishes the claimant’s entitlement to benefits and another ALJ hearing on remand would serve no useful purpose.\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eat 111 (citations omitted). The court found the undisputed evidence compels the conclusion that Appellant was unable to sustain full-time work — eight hours a day, five days a week — during the relevant period due, in part, to her difficulty performing daily activities; her record of flare-ups, on and off for at least half a month at a time; her difficulty working for even four hours a week and her extensive medical records corroborating the severity, persistence, and limiting effects of her impairments. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eat 111-12. The court found it was evident that she could not sustain any type of full-time work. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eat 112.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 18\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Fourth Circuit concluded that the record as a whole clearly established Appellant’s legal entitlement to disability benefits. Moreover, remanding the case for yet another ALJ hearing would be not only pointless, but also unjust as she has been denied disability benefits for ten years, solely because of the agency’s errors. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e. “After multiple denials and reconsideration requests, two ALJ hearings, and two federal suits, we simply cannot delay justice any longer. Therefore, we reverse and remand the case to the Commissioner for a calculation of disability benefits.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43496843346117,"sku":"","price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_1a4e28c6-154c-4084-9241-e60ca20cad05.jpg?v=1715343742"},{"product_id":"shelley-c-v-comm-r-of-soc-sec-admin-61-f-4th-341-4th-cir-feb-22-2023-decision-by-chief-judge-gregory-in-which-judges-wynn-and-floyd-joined","title":"Shelley C. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 61 F.4th 341 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2023) - Seminal case addressing severe depression","description":"\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 19\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShelley C. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin\u003c\/em\u003e., 61 F.4th 341 (4th Cir. 2023)\u003c\/strong\u003e (Decision by Chief Judge Gregory, in which Judges Wynn and Floyd joined)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e  \u003c\/span\u003eBrief of the Appellant, Appellant’s Reply Brief and Opinion \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTreating physician opinions (old law) - good cause \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTreating physician opinions (old law) - regulatory factors\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eTreating physician opinions (old law) - issue reserved to the Commissioner\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - improper focus on objective evidence\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - treatment regimen\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEvaluation of depression\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePost hoc justification\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRemand for award of benefits – entitlement clear from the record\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 92-2p (old law)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1) The Commissioner failed to comply with controlling law in evaluating the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eopinion of Dr. Beale, Appellant’s longtime treating psychiatrist. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) The Commissioner reversibly erred by failing to properly assess Appellant’s allegations and subjective complaints. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Fourth Circuit held that (1) the ALJ failed sufficiently to consider the requisite regulatory factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) and the record evidence by extending little weight to the opinion of Shelley C.’s longtime treating psychiatrist; (2) the ALJ improperly disregarded Shelley C.’s subjective statements; and (3) in an issue of first impression, the “ALJ’s analysis did not account for the unique nature of the relevant mental health impairments, specifically chronic depression.” 61 F.4th at 341, 346. As the court held that “substantial evidence clearly establishes Shelley C.’s disability,” the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded “with instructions to grant disability benefits.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e. at 369. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIn addressing the issue of first impression – the evaluation of chronic depression – the court explained: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIn\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eArakas\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, we held that ALJs could not rely upon the absence of objective medical evidence to discredit “a claimant’s subjective complaints regarding symptoms of fibromyalgia or some other d\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eisease that does not produce such evidence.” 983 F.3d at 97 (emphasis added).  Today, we hold that depression — particularly chronic depression — is one of those other diseases. Characterized as a “mood disorder,” [Major Depressive Disorder (MDD)] “causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest . . . it affects how you feel, think and behave[.]” . . . Notably, the DSM-V declares that “no laboratory test has yielded results of sufficient sensitivity and specificity to be used as a diagnostic tool for [MDD.]” But most importantly, “[s]ymptoms caused by major depression \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ecan vary from person to person\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e.” (emphasis added). Stated differently, symptoms of MDD, like those of fibromyalgia, are “entirely subjective,” determined on a case-by-case basis.  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eArakas\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 983 F.3d at 96 (emphasis added). Ultimately, because of the unique and subjective nature of MDD, subjective statements from claimants “should be treated as evidence substantiating the claimant’s impairment.”  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c\/em\u003e at 97-98.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/blockquote\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 20\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e61 F. 4th at 361-62 (citations omitted) (\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eciting Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e., 983 F.3d 83 (4th Cir. 2020)).  After the issuance of the decision, the Commissioner filed a Petition for Rehearing seeking to delete this paragraph of the decision, which was denied. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe court also commented on the ALJ’s “deep misunderstanding of mental health impairments, particularly severe depression.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003e. \u003c\/em\u003eat 356. The court cited from decisions in other circuits in observing: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe fact is “people with chronic diseases can experience good and bad days” even “under continuous treatment for it with heavy drugs.”\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSchink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e., 935 F.3d 1245, 1267 (11th Cir. 2019). “Suppose that half the time she is well enough that she could work, and half the time she is not. Then she could not hold down a full-time job.”\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003e(citing Bauer v. Astrue\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 532 F.3d 606, 609 (7th Cir. 2008); \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSingletary v. Bowen\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 798 F.2d 818, 821 (5th Cir. 1986)). \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/blockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e. at 357. The Fourth Circuit “joined our sister circuits’ growing conversation surrounding chronic diseases, highlighting, in particular, the unique and subjective nature of chronic depression.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e. at 368. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe court further commented on the ALJ’s finding that Shelley C.’s treatment regimen was “routine and conservative,” stating: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eA growing number of district courts have held that in cases where claimants consume antidepressant, anticonvulsant, and\/or antipsychotic drugs, consistently attend visits with mental health professions, and endure constant medication adjustment and management, their treatment is classified as anything but “routine and conservative.” Thus, at a \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eminimum, Shelley C.’s constant medication management and sessions with Dr. Beale and Bernstein cannot be so classified.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 21\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 363. The court commented that when “medication management did not appear to abate her symptoms with any longevity, Dr. Beale recommended that Shelley C. enroll in either TMS or ECT,” treatment which are “only offered and administered to those with the most severe cases of depression.” \u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e. at 363-64. “Overlooking the extensive and nuanced treatment Shelley C. received, the ALJ inappropriately ‘play[ed] doctor in contravention of the requirements of applicable regulations.’ \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eLewis\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 858 F.3d at 869 (cleaned up), by concluding that her treatment was “‘routine and conservative.’” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e. at 364 (\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eciting Lewis v. Berryhill\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 858 F.3d 858, 861 (4th Cir. 2017)). \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe court also held that the ALJ erred by improperly increasing Shelley C.’s burden of proof in requiring that her subjective statements be validated by objective medical support.\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e. at 362. The court found the ALJ erred in discounting Shelley C.’s subjective complaints upon the belief that they were not corroborated by the record’s medical evidence, noting “the Fourth Circuit has long held that ‘while there must be objective medical evidence of some condition that could reasonably produce the pain, there need not be objective evidence of the pain itself or its intensity.’” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 360 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the court found Shelley C. was entitled to rely entirely on subjective evidence to demonstrate that her condition was sufficiently persistent and severe to support a disability finding, and that the record contained no shortage of such evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 360-61. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRegarding the evaluation of Shelley C.’s treating psychiatrist, the Fourth Circuit held that the ALJ not only failed to properly consider or acknowledge the regulatory factors, the ALJ failed to identify which medical evidence in “Shelley C.’s extensive record presented inconsistencies with Dr. Beal’s opinion.”\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e. at 354-55. The ALJ is required to provide a “narrative discussion of how the evidence supported his conclusion and, as such, the analysis is incomplete and precludes meaningful review.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c\/em\u003e at 364 (\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eciting Arakas\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 983 F.3d at 106) (\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eciting Monroe v. Colvin\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 826 F.3d 176, 190-91 (4th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up)). Additionally, that his opinion briefly touched on an opinion reserved for the Commissioner, did not allow the ALJ to “extend ‘little weight’ to the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eentire \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eopinion on this ground.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e. at 356 (emphasis in original). The court concluded that, consistent with his opinion, Dr. Beale’s treatment notes reveal that Shelley C. suffers from significant and severe symptoms that would undoubtedly hinder her from performing even basic work activities. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 358. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFinally, the Fourth Circuit held that the ALJ had “inadequately grappled with the unique nature of Shelley C.’s mental health impairments, particularly chronic depression,” and that if “analyzed correctly, Shelley C.’s depression demonstrated both marked and extreme limitations that would instantly qualify her as disabled.”\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 364. Thus, the court concluded that substantial evidence in the record clearly established Shelley C.’s disability, and reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded with instructions to grant disability benefits. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 369.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43496845902021,"sku":"","price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_4ee35b6f-a478-4287-8fa3-3acae3c41be7.jpg?v=1715344023"},{"product_id":"peter-h-v-kijakazi-case-no-2-23-cv-00663-mgb-d-s-c-aug-11-2023-order-by-u-s-magistrate-judge-mary-gordan-baker-by-consent","title":"Peter H. v. Kijakazi (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 2023) -  Dupuytren’s contracture, RFC,  subjective complaints, other work","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePeter H. v. Kijakazi\u003c\/em\u003e, Case No. 2:23-cv-00663-MGB (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 2023) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Order by U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Gordan Baker, by consent)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:\u003c\/strong\u003e Plaintiff’s Brief and Remand Order \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – need to consider severe and nonsevere impairments\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRFC – need to determine on a function by function basis\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - reliance on outdated assessments of State agency medical consultants\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective complaints - improper focus on objective evidence\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective complaints - regulatory factors\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSubjective complaints - daily activities\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArm\/\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ehand impairment \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 83-10\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 84-28\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eSocial \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSecurity Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p \u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues Briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ committed reversible error in failing to comply with controlling law in \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eassessing Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ failed to properly evaluate the severity of Plaintiff’s Dupuytren’s contracture of the right hand.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ failed to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and testimony.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Commissioner failed to sustain her burden of establishing that there is other work in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAfter 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.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43498126475461,"sku":"","price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_c65e342b-1e11-4673-a6ab-75bc0c553ae1.jpg?v=1715359855"},{"product_id":"mary-a-v-kijakazi-case-no-0-22-cv-00377-pjg-d-s-c-mar-31-2023-decision-by-u-s-magistrate-judge-paige-j-gossett-by-consent","title":"Mary A. v. Kijakazi (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 2023) - evaluation of CE, GAF scores, subjective complaints, remand for an award of benefits","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eary A. v. Kijak\u003c\/em\u003eazi, Case. No. 0:22-cv-00377-PJG (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 2023)\u003c\/strong\u003e (Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, by consent)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:\u003c\/strong\u003e  Plaintiff’s Brief, Plaintiff’s Reply Brief and court decision\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 25\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions (old law) - issue reserved to the Commissioner\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - daily activities\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - \u003c\/span\u003eALJ must consider reasons for not seeking treatment\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVocational testimony - hypothetical question\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMental impairments - GAF scores\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAppeals Council remand orders – duty to follow\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCourt remand orders – duty to follow\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRemand for award of benefits – entitlement clear from the record\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addresse\u003c\/strong\u003ed\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: (none)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ reversibly erred by again improperly weighing the medical opinion \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eevidence of Dr. Waid, an examining psychologist.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ committed reversible error in again relying on an outdated GAF score of 53.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ again reversibly erred by failing to properly assess Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Commissioner again failed to sustain her burden of establishing that there is other work in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e5) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis Court should remand with instructions to award benefits. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter full briefing, the court issued an opinion and remanded for an award of benefits.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43498128736453,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_a58701f4-0ec1-4f0a-a937-305aa3dc9236.jpg?v=1715359939"},{"product_id":"kathryn-l-v-comm-r-of-soc-sec-no-23-1460-2024-wl-400329-6th-cir-feb-2-2024-decision-by-gibbons-white-and-thapar-circuit-judges","title":"[Stephanie L.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. (W.D. Mich. Mar. 6, 2023) - Interstitial cystitis, subjective complaints, medical opinions","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e[Stephanie L.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e., No. 1:22-CV-619, 2023 WL 2365309 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 6, 2023)\u003c\/strong\u003e (Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sally J. Berens, by consent)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:\u003c\/strong\u003e Plaintiff’s Brief and Plaintiff’s Reply Brief \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003eSubstantial gainful activity - part-time work\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - off task findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRFC – breaks due to incontinence\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003eMedical opinions - supportability\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - daily activities\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - treatment regimen \u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - ALJ must consider reasons for not seeking treatment\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - work activity\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInterstitial cystitis\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePost hoc rationalization\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 15-1p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ failed to comply with Social Security Ruling 15-1p in evaluating the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eimpact of Plaintiff’s Interstitial Cystitis on her ability to perform sustained work activities.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ did not properly discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and testimony.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s reasons for not crediting the opinion of Dr. Wilkinson that Plaintiff cannot perform sustained work activities are not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAfter full briefing, the court remanded for further proceedings.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43498142990533,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_8465fd39-f005-4b04-9200-3a2c1cae4418.jpg?v=1715360248"},{"product_id":"faith-l-v-comm-r-of-soc-sec-no-2-21-cv-12942-2022-wl-19518452-w-d-mich-nov-8-2022","title":"[Faith L.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. (W.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2022) - incontinence and work breaks, past work, subjective complaints","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 37\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"column\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFaith L.] v. Comm’r of Soc. S\u003c\/em\u003eec., No. 2:21-CV-12942, 2022 WL 19518452 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2022) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Report and Recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris, adopted in part, rejected in part, by U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg in No. 2:21-CV-12942-TGB-PTM, 2023 WL 2733382 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2023)\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"column\"\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eBriefs Included: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003ePlaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s Reply Brief, and Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation   \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - need to consider nonsevere impairments \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - relationship with PRTF findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - off task findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - breaks due to incontinence\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eRFC - post-DLI evidence\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - ALJ must consider reasons for not seeking treatment\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - work activity\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms -medication side effects\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - work activity \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColitis  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 82-62  (\u003cem\u003eNote: rescinded and replaced by SSR 24-\u003c\/em\u003e2p) \u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ failed to properly account for Plaintiff’s fecal incontinence, despite the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eample evidence of this condition and the vocational witness testimony that even one unscheduled break per day would preclude competitive work.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The ALJ committed reversible error in finding Plaintiff could perform her past relevant skilled and semi-skilled work despite the credited mild mental impairments.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ did not properly discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and testimony. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAfter full briefing, the court remanded for further proceedings.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43498156359877,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_e83f81cc-d27a-4167-a8df-881d49c61581.jpg?v=1715360507"},{"product_id":"ivelisse-a-v-o-malley-case-no-1-23-20999-rbk-d-n-j-apr-26-2024-order-by-u-s-district-judge-robert-b-kugler","title":"I. A. v. O’Malley (D.N.J. Apr. 26, 2024) - mischaracterization of VE testimony, borderline age, RFC, medical opinion","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 37\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"column\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eI.A. v. O’Malley\u003c\/em\u003e, Case No. 1:23-20999-RBK (D.N.J. Apr. 26, 2024)\u003c\/strong\u003e (Order by U. S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:  \u003c\/strong\u003ePlaintiff’s Brief and remand order \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eRFC - required findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eRFC – lack of support for findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAge categories - mechanical application\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eVocational testimony – mischaracterization of record\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRemand for an award of benefits – delay\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eRulings addressed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-9p\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c\/strong\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed:\u003c\/strong\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e1) The step five finding is based on a mistake of fact.\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cspan\u003e 2) The age categories were erroneously applied mechanically in a borderline situation.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cspan\u003e 3) The residual functional capacity finding is the product of a lay evaluation and is not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cspan\u003e 4) The ALJ erroneously discredited Dr. Bogacki’s opinion.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter Plaintiff briefed the merits, the Commissioner chose not to defend the ALJ’s decision and instead, sought a voluntary remand. The parties negotiated the remandmterms and the court remanded for further proceedings.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43498168090821,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_a71d79e9-a237-4163-aba8-0cf7681e3764.jpg?v=1715360732"},{"product_id":"matthew-l-v-o-malley-case-no-1-23-cv-21585-nmk-d-n-j-april-25-2024-order-by-u-s-magistrate-judge-norah-mccann-king","title":"Matthew L. v. O’Malley (D.N.J. April 25, 2024) - incomplete record, RFC – failure to include credited opinions, subjective complaints, other work","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 37\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 5\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMatthew L. v. O’Malley\u003c\/em\u003e, Case No. 1:23-cv-21585-NMK (D.N.J. April 25, 2024)\u003c\/strong\u003e (Order by U.S. Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:  \u003c\/strong\u003ePlaintiff’s Brief and remand order\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - Required findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRFC – failure to include credited opinions\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions - failure to address medical opinions \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions - supportability\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions - consistency\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - regulatory factors\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - daily activities\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eVocational testimony - hypothetical question\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFailure to file a complete record \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-9p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\u003c\/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The Commissioner failed to file a complete record as required by 42 U.S.C. § \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e405(g), as the transcript of the February 1, 2022, hearing is not in the record.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDespite finding the opinion of Samuel Wilchfort, M.D., a consultative examiner, to be persuasive, the ALJ committed reversible error in failing to provide any reasons for not incorporating the limitations he found in the RFC assessment.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ failed to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Commissioner failed to meet his burden of establishing that there is other work in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 6\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter 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.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43498171072709,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_c6248bf6-cc7e-407e-bab8-b1df051c9a60.jpg?v=1715360807"},{"product_id":"kenneth-r-v-comm-r-of-soc-sec-case-no-3-23-cv-21078-znq-d-n-j-apr-15-2024-order-by-u-s-district-judge-zahid-n-quraishi","title":"Kenneth R. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. (D.N.J. Apr. 15, 2024) - morbid obesity, accomodations, RFC","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 37\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 5\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 6\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKenneth R. v. Comm’r of Soc. S\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eec\u003c\/em\u003e., Case No. 3:23-cv-21078-ZNQ (D.N.J. Apr. 15, 2024)\u003c\/strong\u003e (Order by U. S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e: \u003c\/strong\u003e \u003c\/span\u003ePlaintiff’s Brief and remand order \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - limitations from morbid obesity\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - improper focus on objective evidence\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - regulatory factors\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSubjective symptoms - ALJ must consider reasons for not seeking treatment\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eVocational testimony - hypothetical question\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVocational testimony - mischaracterization of the record\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVocational testimony - accommodation cannot be considered\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObesity\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObstructive sleep apnea \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-9p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 00-1c \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 11-2p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 19-2p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment is not supported by substantial \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eevidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The ALJ committed reversible error in evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective complaints by requiring objective evidence to fully substantiate the degree of his pain and associated limitations.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The Commissioner failed to meet his burden of establishing that there is other work in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform without any accommodations. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003eAfter 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.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43498173825221,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_42d5a9ba-4a21-4871-8e0a-b2f982b4b7d8.jpg?v=1715360875"},{"product_id":"nikita-m-v-o-malley-case-no-2-23-cv-10722-d-n-j-feb-21-2024-order-by-u-s-magistrate-judge-norah-mccann-king","title":"Nikita M. v. O’Malley (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2024) - interacting with supervisors, medical opinions, subjective complaints, lay evidence, sentence 6 remands","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 37\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 5\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 6\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 7\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNikita M. v. O’Malley,\u003c\/em\u003e No. 2:23-CV-10722 (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2024) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Order by U.S. Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:  \u003c\/strong\u003ePlaintiff’s Brief and remand order \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – interacting with co-workers, supervisors and the public \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions - supportability  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions - articulation requirements \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTestimony of lay witnesses \u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - regulatory factors\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - required finding\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMental domains - interacting with others\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSentence 6 remands due to new evidence\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-9p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ’s reasons for not crediting the opinions from Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner Ajanaku-Makun, Plaintiff’s treating mental health provider, are not based on substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The ALJ’s mental RFC finding is deficient as it failed to address any limitations in interacting with supervisors.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s reasons for not crediting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints are not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The ALJ’s reasons for not crediting the lay evidence of record are not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e5) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Court should remand pursuant to the sixth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) in light of new and material evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 8\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003eAfter 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.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43498177626309,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_a0787bf6-f180-46c9-b623-3d161e1729a3.jpg?v=1715360981"},{"product_id":"sheryl-c-v-kijakazi-acting-comm-r-of-soc-sec-case-no-1-20-cv-20151-d-n-j-mar-14-2023-decision-by-u-s-magistrate-judge-norah-mccann-king-by-consent","title":"Sheryl C. v. Kijakazi, Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec. (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2023) - duty to develop record for unrepresented claimant, medical opinions, subjective complaints, lay evidence","description":"\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 24\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 35\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 37\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 5\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 6\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 7\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 8\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSheryl C. v. Kijakazi, Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec.\u003c\/em\u003e, Case No. 1:20-cv-20151 (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2023) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King, by consent)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase: \u003c\/strong\u003e Plaintiff’s Brief, Plaintiff’s Reply Brief and court decision\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions - supportability \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions - consistency\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eTestimony of lay witnesses\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective complaints - daily activities\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWaiver of right to counsel \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuty to develop the record for unrepresented claimant\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eRuling addressed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 9\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ failed in his duty to develop the record for Plaintiff, who appeared \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003epro se\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, by not updating the medical evidence as required.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion evidence from APN Mendoza.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ did not properly evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and testimony.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ committed reversible error in failing to mention and weigh the lay testimony of Plaintiff’s mother.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter full briefing, the court issued a decision and remanded for further proceedings.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43498179330245,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_d6929e5e-8f72-4b80-8b44-de60c18ea051.jpg?v=1715361037"},{"product_id":"1-brian-r-v-kijakazi-no-cv-3-21-00750-2022-wl-4230247-w-d-la-aug-29-2022-report-and-recommendation-adopted-no-cv-3-21-00750-2022-wl-4227881-w-d-la-sept-13-2022","title":"[Brian R.] v. Kijakazi (W.D. La. Sept. 13, 2022) - drug \u0026 alcohol abuse, RFC, subjective complaints","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 37\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 5\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 6\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 7\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 8\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 23\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e[Brian R.] v. Kijakazi\u003c\/em\u003e, No. CV 3:21-00750, 2022 WL 4230247 (W.D. La. Aug. 29, 2022), r\u003cem\u003eeport and recommendation adopted,\u003c\/em\u003e No. CV 3:21-00750, 2022 WL 4227881 (W.D. La. Sept. 13, 2022) \u003c\/strong\u003e(R\u0026amp;R by U.S. Magistrate Kayla Dye McClusky, adopted by U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:  \u003c\/strong\u003eAppellant’s Initial Brief and Appellant’s Reply Brief \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 24\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 26\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - relationship with PRTF findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - interacting with co-workers, supervisors and the public  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNon-examining physicians v. examining physicians (old law)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - daily activities \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - ALJ must consider reasons for not seeking treatment\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - work activity \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMental domains - interacting with others\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDrug and alcohol (DAA) abuse\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAppeals Council - duty to follow remand orders \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eRemand for an award of benefits - entitlement clear from the record\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 27\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 85-15\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 13-2p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues Briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ committed reversible legal error by not complying with applicable \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eauthority concerning the role of Plaintiff’s alcohol use.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s RFC assessment is not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ failed to properly consider Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and testimony. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e:\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003eAfter full briefing, the court remanded for further proceedings.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43498185064645,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_1e3e6f58-fa8f-4faf-9624-9616fb09f1a7.jpg?v=1715361871"},{"product_id":"vanissa-c-v-u-s-commissioner-case-no-3-21-cv-04454-tad-kdm-w-d-la-aug-22-2022-order-by-district-judge-terry-a-doughty","title":"Vanissa C. v. U.S. Commissioner (W.D. La. Aug. 22, 2022) - onset date, mental RFC, subjective complaints","description":"\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 24\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 35\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 37\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 5\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 6\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 7\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 8\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 23\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 27\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eVanissa C. v. U.S. Commissioner\u003c\/em\u003e, Case No. 3:21-cv-04454-TAD-KDM (W.D. La. Aug. 22, 2022) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Order by District Judge Terry A. Doughty)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:  \u003c\/strong\u003eAppellant’s Social Security Brief, Motion to Remand, and Judgment granting Motion to Remand \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - relationship with PRTF findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eRFC - interacting with co-workers, supervisors and the public\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSubjective symptoms - improper focus on objective evidence\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - regulatory factors\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eEstablishing o\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003enset  \u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMental domains - interacting with others\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 85-15 \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-9p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 18-01p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ’s determination of Plaintiff’s disability onset date is not linked to \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003esubstantial evidence and violates SSR 18-01p.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s mental residual functional capacity finding is deficient.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlaintiff’s subjective complaints and testimony were not properly considered by the ALJ. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter 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.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43498190307525,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_ae862e14-1adf-422d-8d0c-ef15ad1cb636.jpg?v=1715361894"},{"product_id":"shalonda-c-v-kijakazi-case-no-2-22-cv-08634-spg-bfm-c-d-ca-apr-11-2024-order-by-district-judge-sherilyn-peace-garnett","title":"Shalonda C. v. Kijakazi (C.D. Ca. Apr. 11, 2024) - migraine headaches, RFC, subjective complaints, VE\/DOT conflict, sentence 6 remands","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 37\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 5\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 6\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 7\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 8\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 38\"\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShalonda C. v. Kijakazi\u003c\/em\u003e, Case No. 2:22-cv-08634-SPG-BFM (C.D. Ca. Apr. 11, 2024) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Order by District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:  \u003c\/strong\u003eJoint Stipulation (Plaintiff’s portion only) and remand order\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eRFC - relationship with PRTF findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eMedical opinions - supportability\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eMedical opinions - consistency \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eMedical opinions - must consider supportive notes \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSubjective complaints - improper focus on overall credibility\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eVocational testimony - inconsistency with the DOT\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMigraine headaches\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e Rulings addressed:\u003c\/strong\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 19-4p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 00-4p (\u003cem\u003eNote: rescinded and replaced by SSR 24-3p\u003c\/em\u003e)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues Briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  Whether the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether the ALJ complied with SSR 19-4p in evaluating Plaintiff’s migraine headaches.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether the ALJ complied with SSR 16-3p in evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether the ALJ committed reversible error in failing to ask the vocational witness if his testimony conflicted with the DOT.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e5) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether this Court should remand under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003econsider new evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAfter Plaintiff briefed the merits, the Commissioner chose not to defend the ALJ’s\u003cbr\u003edecision and instead, sought a voluntary remand. The parties negotiated the remand\u003cbr\u003eterms and the court remanded for further proceedings.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43498265608389,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_a767cd01-5a21-4fbc-8890-198d529faec3.jpg?v=1715362467"},{"product_id":"stacy-s-v-kijakazi-case-no-2-23-cv-01632-mwe-jpr-c-d-ca-dec-2-2023-order-by-michael-w-fitzgerald-united-states-district-judge","title":"Stacy S. v. Kijakazi (C.D. Ca. Dec. 2, 2023) - brain injury, severe impairment, RFC, subjective complaints","description":"\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 24\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 35\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 37\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 5\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 6\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 7\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 8\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 38\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 39\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStacy S. v. Kijakazi\u003c\/em\u003e, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01632-MWE (JPR) (C.D. Ca. Dec. 2, 2023)\u003c\/strong\u003e (Order by Michael W. Fitzgerald, United States District Judge)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase: \u003c\/strong\u003ePlaintiff’s Brief and remand order \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeverity standard\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - failure to include credited opinions\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTestimony of lay witnesses \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective complaints - daily activities\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSubjective symptoms - work activity\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eDuration requirement\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eCognitive impairment \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eBrain injury\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eALJ mischaracterization of the record\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 83-10\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1) The ALJ’s finding that Stacy S.’s brain injury\/head aneurysm is not a  severe \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eimpairment is not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s RFC assessment is not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ failed to properly evaluate Stacy S.’s subjective complaints.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 40\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter 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\u003cbr\u003eterms and the court remanded for further proceedings.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43498271637701,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_7260194d-c115-446b-b56c-21644b3bc36e.jpg?v=1715362624"},{"product_id":"wayne-m-v-kijakazi-case-no-cv-22-55-cas-mrw-c-d-ca-may-31-2023-r-r-by-magistrate-judge-michael-r-wilner-adopted-by-christina-a-snyder-senior-united-states-district-judge","title":"Wayne M. v. Kijakazi (C.D. Ca. May 31, 2023) - medical opinions, RFC, subjective complaints","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 37\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 5\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 6\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 7\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 8\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 38\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 39\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 40\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWayne M. v. Kijakazi\u003c\/em\u003e, Case No. CV 22-55 CAS (MRW) (C.D. Ca. May 31, 2023) \u003c\/strong\u003e(R\u0026amp;R by U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner, adopted by Christina A. Snyder, Senior United States District Judge)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:  \u003c\/strong\u003eJoint Stipulation (with initial brief and reply brief), R\u0026amp;R, and Order adopting R\u0026amp;R \u003cstrong\u003e \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003eRFC - ALJ must build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his or her conclusion\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - off task findings \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDefinition of medical source opinion\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions - supportability\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTestimony of lay witnesses\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u003cspan\u003eubjective symptoms - required findings \u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective complaints - daily activities\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvaluation of bipolar disorder\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - required findings \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAcquiescence Ruling 97-4(9)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e1) Whether the ALJ’s reasons for finding the opinion of Dr. Wexler, a treating \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003epsychiatrist, not persuasive, are supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Whether the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter full briefing, a Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending remand for further proceedings. No objections were filed, and the court entered an order remanding for further proceedings.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43498276618437,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_b7581d17-3b9a-4c4e-b23f-e625d8f517da.jpg?v=1715362727"},{"product_id":"helen-k-v-kijakazi-case-no-2-21-cv-09711-kes-c-d-ca-jan-24-2023-decision-by-u-s-magistrate-judge-karen-e-scott-by-consent","title":"Helen K. v. Kijakazi (C.D. Ca. Jan. 24, 2023) - cognitive impairment, failure to include credited opinion, lay evidence","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 37\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 5\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 6\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 7\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 8\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 38\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 39\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 40\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 42\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHelen K. v. Kijakazi\u003c\/em\u003e, Case No. 2:21-cv-09711-KES (C.D. Ca. Jan. 24, 2023) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott, by consent)\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase\u003c\/strong\u003e:  J\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eoint Stipulation and \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eMemorandum Opinion and Order \u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpecific impairments - stroke \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpecific impairments - cognitive limitations \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - failure to include credited opinions \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions (new law) - persuasiveness \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - relationship with PRTF findings \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - need for special supervision \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - lay evidence \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective complaints - failure to take medications\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSubjective complaints - daily activities\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 18-3p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues Briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  Whether the ALJ properly considered the evidence from Dr. Williamson, whose \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eopinions the ALJ found “persuasive.”\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Whether the ALJ’s mental RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether the ALJ properly considered the lay evidence of record in assessing Plaintiff’s RFC.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter full briefing, the court remanded for further proceedings.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43498280943813,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_612afa71-0c82-4cb2-b86c-df6eb348cdcd.jpg?v=1715362825"},{"product_id":"angelo-r-v-saul-796-f-app-x-49-2d-cir-2020","title":"[Angelo R.] v. Saul, 796 F. App’x 49 (2d Cir. 2020) - improper reliance on ALJ’s lay interpretation of the record, composite job","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 4\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003engelo R]. v. Saul\u003c\/em\u003e, 796 F. App’x 49 (2d Cir. 2020) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Decision by Rosemary S. Pooler and Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judges, and District Judge Jesse M. Furman, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation)\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs Included:  \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eAppellant’s Initial Brief and \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eAppellant’s Reply Brief\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cstrong style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e \u003c\/strong\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eRFC - lack of support for findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eRFC - reliance on ALJ’s lay interpretation of the record\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePast relevant work - required findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePast relevant work - composite jobs\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTransferable of skills\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eHarmless error\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 82-41\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 82-61 (\u003cem\u003eNote: rescinded and replaced by SSR 24-2p\u003c\/em\u003e) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 82-62 (\u003cem\u003eNote: rescinded and replaced by SSR 24-2p\u003c\/em\u003e) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e83-10\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1) \u003cspan\u003eThe Commissioner’s finding that Appellant is capable of performing his “past \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003erelevant work as a sales representative, carting [and] moving estimator and general manager” is not supported by substantial evidence as such work was, in fact, a “composite job” also entailing medium duties. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Commissioner’s finding that Appellant can perform light work is not based on substantial evidence, as such a finding is not supported by the opinion of any physician. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDecision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e:\u003cbr\u003eThe Second Circuit first addressed Appellant’s argument that the ALJ erred in finding that he could perform light work because “rather than weigh the conflicting medical opinions in the record, the ALJ discounted the medical opinions and substituted her own judgment to interpret the raw medical data against [Appellant’s] testimony and treatment history.” 796 F. App’x at 80. The court stated that:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eas we previously have held, “a circumstantial critique by non-physicians, however thorough or responsible, must be overwhelmingly compelling in order to overcome a medical opinion.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eWagner v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e., 906 F.2d 856, 862 (2d Cir. 1990). \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWe agree with [Appellant] that the ALJ failed to meet that high burden when she relied solely on her lay interpretation of the diagnostic tests and other non-medical evidence. “[T]he ALJ cannot \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003earbitrarily substitute h[er] own judgment for competent medical opinion\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e.”\u003cem\u003e McBrayer v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e., 712 F.2d 795, 799 (2d Cir. 1983). As the Commissioner conceded at oral argument, the ALJ relied heavily on [Appellant’s] past ability to exercise at the gym and play sports but failed to acknowledge that those activities ended sometime during the alleged disability period. Moreover, our review of the record demonstrates that [Appellant’s] current lifestyle is “not inconsistent” with the treating physicians’ opinions. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSee Balsamo v. Chater\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 142 F.3d 75, 81 (2d Cir. 1998) (recognizing that a person may engage in activities like attending church and shopping while being unable to perform work for sustained periods).\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/blockquote\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 5\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe court found that the ALJ must base her RFC assessment on “some medical opinion or otherwise articulate the overwhelmingly compelling reasons for not doing so.” (citation omitted). “Absent those reasons, the ALJ had an ‘affirmative obligation’ to ‘attempt[ ] to fill any clear gaps in the administrative record’ created by inconsistencies in the medical opinions — for example, by directing the physicians to ‘supplement [their] findings with additional information.’” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e(\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eciting Rosa v. Callahan\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 168 F.3d 72, 79-80 (2d Cir. 1999)). The court also held that the “ALJ committed error by failing to develop the record and improperly rejecting the treating physicians’ opinions.”\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570604802245,"sku":"","price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_1024x1024_2x_e81ea1d4-c5dd-48f0-9942-e534191fbea4.webp?v=1716415869"},{"product_id":"derrick-m-v-comm-r-of-soc-sec-no-20-cv-05961-fb-2022-wl-2541390-e-d-n-y-july-7-2022","title":"[Derrick M.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. (E.D.N.Y. July 7, 2022) - arm\/hand impairment, assistive device, improper substitution of medical opinion by the ALJ","description":"\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 4\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 5\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e[\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eDerrick M.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e., No. 20-CV-05961 (FB), 2022 WL 2541390 (E.D.N.Y. July 7, 2022\u003c\/strong\u003e) (Decision by Senior District Judge Frederic Block)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eBriefs included:  \u003c\/strong\u003eMemorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Plaintiff’s Reply Brief \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRFC - need to consider severe and non-severe impairments\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - assistive device\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - manipulative limitations \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eImproper substitution of medical opinion by the ALJ\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective complaints - improper focus on objective evidence\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective complaints - regulatory factors\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eVocational testimony - hypothetical question\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArm\/hand impairment\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 83-10\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-9p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 6\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ erred by failing to fully account for Derrick M.’s arm impairments in the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eresidual functional capacity finding.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The ALJ improperly disregarded Derrick M.’s occasional need for a cane, despite the findings and opinion of Dr. Wells, a State agency examiner, who opined that a cane was needed for balance.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s reasons for discrediting Derrick M.’s subjective complaints are not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe testimony provided by the vocational witness cannot provide support for the ALJ’s findings as it was based on incomplete hypothetical questioning. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter full briefing, the court issued an opinion and remanded for further proceedings.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570607587525,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_1024x1024_2x_fe19bc49-a41d-449d-8665-434a70c17e09.webp?v=1716415885"},{"product_id":"kathryn-l-v-comm-r-of-soc-sec-no-23-1460-2024-wl-400329-6th-cir-feb-2-2024","title":"[Kathryn L.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2024) - evaluation of pseudo seizures (psychogenic nonepileptic seizures), subjective complaints","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 30\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e[\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eKathryn L.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Se\u003c\/em\u003ec., No. 23-1460, 2024 WL 400329 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2024)\u003c\/strong\u003e \u003cspan\u003e(Decision by Gibbons, White, and Thapar, Circuit Judges)\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs Included:  \u003c\/strong\u003eAppellant’s Initial Brief and Appellant’s Reply Brief \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eListing - medical equivalence\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - off task findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTestimony of lay witness \u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - lay evidence\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSubjective symptoms - improper focus on objective evidence\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSubjective symptoms – required findings\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpecific impairment - psychogenic nonepileptic seizure\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 17-2p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  Whether the Commissioner properly evaluated the severity of Appellant’s pseudo \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eseizures.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether the Commissioner properly evaluated Appellant’s subjective complaints regarding her pseudo seizures and their impact on her ability to work.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Sixth Circuit noted that the ALJ “concluded, in just one sentence, ‘that the evidence in the file is not consistent with disabling symptoms from these impairments.’” 2024 WL 400329, at *3. However, as the court noted: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 31\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eit is not sufficient for our adjudicators to make a single, conclusory statement that ‘the individual’s statements about his or her symptoms have been considered’ or that ‘the statements about the individual’s symptoms are (or are not) supported or consistent.’” Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304, at *10 (Oct. 25, 2017). The “decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms . . . and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual’s symptoms.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s brief discussion of [Kathryn L.’s] pseudoseizures, which gave little weight to [Kathryn L.’s] alleged symptoms without any clear explanation, fails to do so. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Sixth Circuit characterized this error as a “procedural error,” holding that remand was required because the ALJ “‘failed to follow its own procedural regulation.’”\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat *4 (\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003equoting Wilson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c\/em\u003e, 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004)). And, as emphasized by the Sixth Circuit, “we require the ALJ to state her reasoning with more detail to allow a reviewing court to make that determination.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e(\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eciting Hurst v. Sec’y of Health \u0026amp; Hum. Servs\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e., 753 F.2d 517, 519 (6th Cir. 1985) (“It is more than merely ‘helpful’ for the ALJ to articulate reasons . . . for crediting or rejecting particular sources of evidence. It is absolutely essential for meaningful appellate review.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570629869765,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_d88ea5d4-5f21-4dc4-a736-789a1ff9e886.jpg?v=1716416046"},{"product_id":"tina-p-v-comm-r-of-soc-sec-no-1-23-cv-12419-2024-wl-1660527-e-d-mich-apr-17-2024","title":"[Tina P.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Mich. Apr. 17, 2024) - assistive device, migraine headaches, flawed ME testimony, failure to follow court remand order","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 31\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e[Tina P.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e., No. 1:23-CV-12419, 2024 WL 1660527 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 17, 2024)\u003c\/strong\u003e (Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris, by consent)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase: \u003c\/strong\u003e Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law and Plaintiff’s Reply Brief.    \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eRFC - ALJ must build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003econclusion\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - assistive device\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - manipulative limitations\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - limitations from migraine headaches\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeight of evidence from a nurse practitioner\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMigraine headaches\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical expert testimony - flawed reasoning\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eCourt remand orders - duty to follow\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 06-3p (\u003cem\u003eNote: rescinded effective March 27, 2017\u003c\/em\u003e)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 19-4p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eAcquiescence Ruling 98-4(6)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 32\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ failed to comply with Acquiescence Ruling 98-4(6) in addressing \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlaintiff’s mental impairments.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ erred in relying on highly flawed medical expert testimony that conflicted with well established legal standards pertaining to the evaluation of Social Security disability claims.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The ALJ reversibly erred by failing to comply with the remand orders requiring the ALJ to properly account for Plaintiff’s need for a cane.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e  The ALJ erroneously evaluated Plaintiff’s migraine headache disorder and failed to account for its impact on her RFC, despite the remand orders.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e5) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s reasons for according “little weight” to the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating medical provider, Kristina Y, DNP, FNP-C, are not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAfter full briefing, the court remanded for further proceedings.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570634457285,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_08e18eb4-d53e-4fa0-8696-25d3d325ead6.jpg?v=1716416140"},{"product_id":"jose-a-v-comm-r-of-soc-no-6-21-cv-1909-ejk-2023-wl-5352308-m-d-fla-aug-21-2023","title":"[Jose A.] v. Comm’r of Soc. (M.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2023) (EAJA Order) - substantial justification, awarding $13,327.33 in EAJA fees","description":"\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 77\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e[Jose A.] v. Comm’r of Soc\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c\/em\u003e, No. 6:21-CV-1909-EJK, 2023 WL 5352308 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2023) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Embrey J. Kidd, by consent)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs Included:  \u003c\/strong\u003eMemorandum in Support of Petition for Attorney Fees; Plaintiff’s EAJA Reply; and court order \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEAJA - substantial justification\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eEAJA - hourly rate\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEAJA - reasonableness of hours - pre-filing time\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEAJA - reasonableness of hours - briefing time \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEAJA - reasonableness of hours - pre-filing time\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEAJA - reasonableness of hours - Total time\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEAJA - reasonableness of hours - EAJA time\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings cited:\u003c\/strong\u003e none\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e1)  Whether the government’s position was substantially justified such that no fees should be awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) Whether the fees sought under the EAJA are excessive.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 78\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:  \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe court held that the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified and found that spending 57.35 was reasonable. Thus, the court awarded EAJA fees of $13,327.33.  \u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570647040197,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_35dd85a9-7b8d-4f65-8774-313d23d28706.jpg?v=1716416524"},{"product_id":"angela-m-v-comm-r-case-no-20-20804-civ-scola-406b-order-march-8-2024","title":"Angela M. v. Comm’r (S.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2024) - 406(b) fees of $49,642.86 for 18 hours of federal court work not a windfall","description":"\u003cp title=\"Page 79\" class=\"page\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAngela M. v. Comm’r\u003c\/em\u003e, Case No. 20-20804-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2024) (406(b) Order) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Decision by U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr.)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp title=\"Page 79\" class=\"page\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eJoint Memorandum and \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eOrder awarding 406(b) Fees \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp title=\"Page 79\" class=\"page\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopic addressed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp title=\"Page 79\" class=\"page\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003e• 406(b) fees - windfall\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp title=\"Page 79\" class=\"page\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings cited\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: none \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp title=\"Page 79\" class=\"page\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eI\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003essue briefed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp title=\"Page 79\" class=\"page\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether the award of fees of $49,642.86 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in a contingency fee case where the attorneys spent a total of 18 hours, which was sought in an unopposed motion, constitutes a windfall. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp title=\"Page 79\" class=\"page\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e:  After filing an unopposed motion for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), the court entered the following Order asking for further briefing:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp title=\"Page 79\" class=\"page\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePAPERLESS ORDER requiring additional briefing as to the Petitioner’s (counsel for the Plaintiff) unopposed motion for $49,642.86 in fees under 42 U.S.C. 406(b). Although the Court recognizes that the Petitioner’s efforts have resulted in stellar results for her client, and that the amount she seeks in fees is less than 25% of the past-due Social Security insurance benefits, the Court must nonetheless still “determine whether the fee sought is reasonable for the services rendered.”  \u003cem\u003eJackson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e., 601 F.3d 1268, 1271 (11th Cir. 2010).  Although the Petitioner points to her client’s excellent results, describes taking on substantial risk of loss in representing the Plaintiff, and attests to the parties’ valid contingency agreement, the Court requests further assurances that the extraordinary fee sought in this case is not unreasonable.  Accordingly, the Court orders counsel, on or before February 9, 2024, to file (jointly with the Government), supplemental briefing including the following information: whether the award represents a windfall to counsel; whether counsel’s “success is attributable to [counsel’s] own work or instead to some unearned advantage”; counsel’s “degree of expertise and adequacy of representation”; the “overall complexity of the case”; and “the significance of the result achieved.” \u003cem\u003eGossett v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r\u003c\/em\u003e, 812 F. App’x 847, 850-51 (11th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/blockquote\u003e\n\u003cp title=\"Page 79\" class=\"page\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e filing of a Joint Memorandum, the court entered an Order granting the Unopposed Motion for 406(b) fees and awarded 406(b) fees of $49,642.86, for 18 hours of federal court work.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570653036741,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_df8dac7c-a152-4a4a-a538-56bd0ccb6161.jpg?v=1716416663"},{"product_id":"sharon-h-v-comm-r-of-soc-security-admin-case-no-2-23-cv-00468-rmg-mgb-d-s-c-sept-15-2023","title":"Sharon H. v. Comm’r of Soc. Security Admin. (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 2023) - incontinence, absenteeism, remand for award of benefits","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 21\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSharon H. v. Comm’r of Soc. Security Admin.\u003c\/em\u003e, Case No. 2:23-cv-00468-RMG- MGB (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 2023) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Order by U.S. District Judge Richard M. Gergel)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:\u003c\/strong\u003e  Plaintiff’s Brief, Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Contested Motion for Entry of Social Security Judgment, and remand order \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeverity standard \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003ebreaks due to incontinence\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - treatment regimen\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePast relevant work - composite jobs\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEvaluation of depression\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIncontinence\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAppeals Council remand orders - duty to follow\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarmless error\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCourt remand orders - duty to follow\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRemand for an award of benefits - entitlement to benefits clear from the record\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 22\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 82-61\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  On remand, the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding again failed to reflect \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ea proper evaluation of Plaintiff’s urological impairments.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlthough the ALJ addressed his prior failure to account for the absenteeism that would result from Plaintiff’s frequent medical treatment, the ALJ erred by finding that she would not have needed any time away from work prior to November 16, 2015.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ erroneously determined that Plaintiff could return to her past work as a hospital admitting clerk and medical unit secretary prior to November 16, 2015.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) T\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ehis Court should remand Plaintiff’s case for an award of benefits for the period from November 27, 2013, until November 15, 2015. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis case had been remanded by the court on two previous occasions and in this appeal, after Plaintiff filed her brief, the Commissioner offered a voluntary remand for further proceedings. Plaintiff opposed the remand, seeking a remand with instructions to award benefits. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter filing its opposition to the remand motion, the court entered the following text order:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eORDER: A baseball analogy appears particularly appropriate in response to the Commissioner’s request: three strikes and you are out. The Court will not grant any further requests for remand for a disability application that has been pending for over 9 years. The motion for remand (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED. The Commissioner’s brief in response to the Plaintiff’s brief (Dkt. No. 7) is due within 30 days of this order. The Commissioner is directed to address in detail the Plaintiff’s argument that the Court should reverse the decision of the Commissioner and order an award of benefits. See (Dkt. No. 13 at 4-7). In light of the lengthy administrative and judicial processing of this matter, the Court directs that this matter going forward \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ewill not be referred to the Magistrate Judge but will be handled by this Court. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/blockquote\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eIn subsequent negotiations, the Commissioner agreed to the award of benefits and filed a Motion to Remand which was granted by the Court.  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e  \u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570674860229,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_75ea7989-5a5c-4c5d-932f-af934253d05e.jpg?v=1716417170"},{"product_id":"simon-v-comm-r-soc-sec-admin-7-f-4th-1094-11th-cir-2021","title":"Simon v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 7 F.4th 1094 (11th Cir. 2021) - work environment different from medical clinic; generalized findings about speech, thought content, and intelligence not inconsistent with mental illness","description":"\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 24\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 35\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 37\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 5\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 6\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 7\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 8\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 38\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 39\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 40\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 42\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 47\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimon v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c\/em\u003e, 7 F.4th 1094 (11th Cir. 2021) \u003c\/span\u003e(Decision by Circuit Judges Lagoa, Anderson and Marcus)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs Included:\u003c\/strong\u003e Appellant’s Initial Brief, Appellant’s Reply Brief and court decision \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpecific impairments - evaluation of depression \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMental impairments - fluctuating symptoms typical \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMental impairments - being stable not inconsistent with debilitating illness \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMental impairments - generalized findings about speech, thought content, and intelligence not inconsistent with mental illness\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMental impairments - ability to take care of necessities does not translate into the ability to function in a workplace\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC Assessment - work environment is different from medical clinic or home environment\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - daily activities \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTreating physician’s opinion (old law) - good cause \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTreating physician’s opinion (old law) - need for genuine inconsistency \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions (old law) - weight\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eSubstantial evidence standard - need to scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the decision was reasonable.  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-2p (old law) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-9p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  Whether the Commissioner’s reasons for rejecting the opinions of treating \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003epsychiatrist Dr. Turner and examining psychologist Dr. Marban were not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether the Commissioner’s rejection of Appellant’s alleged symptoms and limitations were not explained or not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe Eleventh Circuit first addressed the standard of review, stating:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubstantial-evidence review does not permit us to “decide the facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the [Commissioner].” \u003cem\u003ePhillips\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. Barnhart\u003c\/em\u003e, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (\u003cem\u003equoting Bloodsworth v. Heckler,\u003c\/em\u003e 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983)).  Within this narrowly limited role, however, the federal courts “do not act as automatons.”  MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir. 1986). We retain an important duty to “scrutinize the record as a whole” and determine whether the agency’s decision was reasonable. \u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e7 F.4th 1094 at 1104.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIn\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimon\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, the claimant alleged disability due to various psychiatric conditions, including chronic depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 1097  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe court noted that the ALJ gave little or no weight to three pieces of evidence: (1) the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eopinions of the claimant’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Turner, who had met with him 32 times and kept extensive notes regarding his psychiatric history; (2) the opinions of a consulting psychologist; and (3) the claimant’s own testimony as to the severity of his symptoms. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe court concluded that the ALJ “did not articulate adequate reasons for discounting this evidence, which provided support for a finding of disability” and therefore remanded for further proceedings\u003cem\u003e. \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 48\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe court noted that SSA regulations applicable for claims filed before March 27, 2017, in force at the time the claimant filed his application, required an ALJ to: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003egive “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinions if they were “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). [A]nd our own case law is clear that a treating physician’s conclusions must be given “substantial or considerable weight” unless there is “good cause” to discount them. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eLewis v. Callahan\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). “Good cause” exists where “(1) [the] treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) [the] treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhilli\u003c\/em\u003eps\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 357 F.3d at 1241. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 1104 (\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003equoting Phillips v. Barnhart\u003c\/em\u003e, \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e357 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 2004)). \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIn addition, the court noted that “[w]hile an ALJ may choose to reject a treating physician’s findings when there is good cause, he ‘must clearly articulate [the] reasons’ for doing so.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e(\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eciting Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (alteration in original) (internal citation omitted). Moreover, the court will not affirm “simply because some rationale might have supported the ALJ’s conclusion.”\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 1104 (\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ec\u003cem\u003eiting Winsch\u003c\/em\u003eel\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 631F.3d at 1179) (internal citation omitted). “It is the responsibility of the agency, not the reviewing court, to supply the justification for its decision and to sufficiently explain ‘the weight [it] has given to obviously probative exhibits.’” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 1104-05 (\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eciting Cowart v. Schweiker\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 662 F.2d 731, 735 (11th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted)). \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Eleventh Circuit agreed with the claimant’s primary argument on appeal that the ALJ failed to state good cause to discount the opinions of Dr. Turner, his treating psychiatrist, as the ALJ’s decision did not adequately explain how the evidence was inconsistent with Dr. Turner’s opinions or otherwise constituted good cause to disregard her conclusions and held that error alone was enough to require remand. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 1105. The court noted that Dr. Turner’s: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003erecords stated time and again that Simon was experiencing intense symptoms from his conditions. Yet any mention of Simon’s most serious symptoms is conspicuously missing from the ALJ’s decision. . . Instead, the ALJ only listed Simon’s relatively minor symptoms, while at the same time emphasizing the sections of Dr. Turner’s notes \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ethat described Simon as stable on his medications. This complete failure to engage with significant portions of Dr. Turner’s clinical findings, which verges on a blatant mischaracterization of Simon’s medical records, was error. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 49\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 1105-06.  The court held it was also error: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eto conclude that Dr. Turner’s occasional references to Simon being “stable on medication” were inconsistent with a finding of debilitating mental illness. Many mental disorders — and bipolar disorder in particular — are characterized by the unpredictable fluctuation of their symptoms, and thus it is not surprising that even a highly unstable patient will have good days or possibly good months. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSee Scott v. Astrue\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c\/em\u003e 647 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2011) (“The very nature of bipolar disorder is that people with the disease experience fluctuations in their symptoms, so any single notation that a patient is feeling better or has had a ‘good day’ does not imply that the condition has been treated.”). Indeed, in another case also involving a claimant diagnosed with bipolar disorder, we explicitly “agree[d] with our sister [c]ircuits that people with chronic diseases can experience good and bad days.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSchink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e., 935 F.3d 1245, 1267 (11th Cir. 2019). For those who suffer from such disorders, “a snapshot of any single moment says little about [a person’s] overall condition,” and an ALJ who relies on such snapshots to discredit the remainder of a psychiatrist’s findings demonstrates a “fundamental, but regrettably all-too-common, misunderstanding of mental illness.”\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003ePunzio v. Astru\u003c\/em\u003ee\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, this Court has held that it was improper for an ALJ to dismiss a psychiatrist’s treatment notes as “indicat[ing] only mild limitations . . . at best” simply because “some of [the claimant’s] mental-status examinations were better than others.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSchink\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 935 F.3d at 1262. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 1106. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIn rejecting the ALJ’s finding that notes made by the consulting doctors were inconsistent with Dr. Turner’s assessment of the claimant’s condition, the court held that: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBefore an ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinions as inconsistent with other medical findings in the record, he or she must identify a “genuine” inconsistency. . . . “It is not enough merely to point to positive or neutral observations that create, at most, a trivial and indirect tension with the treating physician’s opinion by proving no more than that the claimant’s impairments are not all- encompassing.” Consequently, when a claimant has been diagnosed with the types of mental and emotional disorders at issue here, highly generalized statements that the claimant was “cooperative” during \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eexamination, that he exhibited “organized speech” and “relevant thought content,” or that he showed “fair insight” and “intact cognition,” ordinarily will not be an adequate basis to reject a treating physician’s opinions. . . . Nor is it enough to say that the claimant is “intelligent enough to understand and follow orders and to solve problems,” such as serial sevens, because “highly intelligent and able people do fall prey to crippling depression.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 50\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 1107 (internal citations omitted). \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdditionally, the court also noted that when evaluating a claimant’s medical records, the ALJ “must take into account the fundamental differences between the relaxed, controlled setting of a medical clinic and the more stressful environment of a workplace.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAs the court explained: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003ean ALJ must take into account the fundamental differences between the relaxed, controlled setting of a medical clinic and the more stressful environment of a workplace. As the Third Circuit has observed, “[f]or a person . . . who suffers from an affective or personality disorder marked by anxiety, the work environment is completely different from home or a mental health clinic.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eMorales v. Apfe\u003c\/em\u003el\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 225 F.3d 310, 319 (3d Cir. 2000). Thus, “it is not inconsistent — or even that unlikely — that a patient with a highly disruptive mood disorder, in a structured one-on-one conversation with a mental-health professional, might be capable of “be[ing] redirected” from his “tangential” thought processes so as to “remain on topic.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSchink\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 935 F.3d at 1263 (alteration in original); \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003esee also Castro v. Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e., 783 F. App’x 948, 956 (11th Cir. 2019) (“Without more, we cannot say that [the treating physician’s] observations of Castro’s judgment, insight, thought process, and thought content in a treatment environment absent work stressors were inconsistent with his assessments about the limitations she would face in a day-to-day work environment.”). In this case, we cannot discern—and the ALJ did not attempt to explain — how any of Dr. Marban’s or Dr. Merati’s findings are genuinely inconsistent with Dr. Turner’s opinions. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe court therefore concluded these types of capabilities, without more, did not constitute or contribute to good cause to reject Dr. Turner’s opinions. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 1108. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Eleventh Circuit further found the evidence that the claimant could feed himself, dress himself, and shop was not a genuine inconsistency with Dr. Turner’s findings, stating: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIn our view, it goes almost without saying that many people living with severe mental illness are still capable of eating, putting on clothes in the morning, and purchasing basic necessities. None of those \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eactivities, however, say much about whether a person can function in a work environment — with all of its pressures and obligations — on a sustained basis. Without some reasonable explanation from the ALJ as to why completing basic household chores is inconsistent with a finding of disability, this evidence was not sufficient to discredit Dr. Turner. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 51\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eId. \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlthough its conclusion regarding Dr. Turner was enough to require remand, the court stated that it was important to also note its agreement with the claimant that the ALJ erred in giving “little weight” to the consultative physicians’ opinions. The court found that the ALJ’s explanation that they were “inconsistent with the doctor’s own clinical findings and other clinical findings . . . . showing the claimant is capable of performing unskilled work” was insufficient, because the ALJ relied on the same kinds of capabilities relied on to discount Dr. Turner’s opinions. In so holding, the court stated: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAs discussed above, such capabilities — e.g., a good fund of information, fair insight, good judgment, good calculation abilities, and good abstract reasoning — say little to nothing about the capacity to work of a person suffering from the types of mental illnesses with which Simon was diagnosed. And in our view, it scarcely even needs to be explained that knowing such things as the direction in which the sun rises has almost no relevance to a person like Simon’s ability to function in a workplace on a sustained basis. Thus, for the same reasons that these capabilities did not constitute or contribute to good cause to discount Dr. Turner’s opinions, they cannot constitute a reasonable basis for discounting [the consultative physicians’] opinions. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 1108-09. The court also found that the “other clinical findings” that the ALJ found to be inconsistent with the physician’s opinions were insufficient because they were not listed by the ALJ and “in any event, ‘[n]on-examining physicians’ opinions are entitled to little weight when they contradict opinions of examining physicians and do not alone constitute substantial evidence.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSchink\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, 935 F.3d at 1260.” \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 1109. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFinally, the court vacated the ALJ’s finding that the claimant’s testimony regarding his symptoms was inconsistent with the medical evidence because the symptoms were recorded in Dr. Turner’s as well as the other providers’ treatment notes. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eId. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOn remand, the court directed the ALJ to reassess the claimant’s testimony and if still inclined to disbelieve his statements as to the severity of his symptoms, then the ALJ must support that finding by identifying some specific portion of the record undermining his credibility.\u003cem\u003e \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eat 1109-10. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570684068037,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_e2be3184-7eed-4b39-bc24-4850e9379cf8.jpg?v=1716417501"},{"product_id":"jonathan-g-v-comm-r-of-soc-sec-no-23-11380-2023-wl-7220739-11th-cir-july-18-2023","title":"[Jonathan G.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. (11th Cir. July 18, 2023) - medical opinions, lay evidence, subjective symptoms, other work - voluntary remand","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 37\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 5\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 6\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 7\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 8\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 38\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 39\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 40\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 42\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 47\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 52\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eJonathan G.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e., No. 23-11380, 2023 WL 7220739 (11th Cir. July 18, 2023) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Before Jill Pryor, Grant, and Brasher, Circuit Judges)\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:  \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003ePlaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eReply Brief\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - failure to include credited opinions\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTestimony of lay witnesses \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - daily activities\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003eSubjective symptoms - school attendance\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - work activity\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVocational testimony - hypothetical question \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 83-10\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1) \u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s reasons for finding the opinions of Dr. Ludwig unpersuasive are not \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003esupported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ committed reversible error in failing to provide any reasons for his implicit rejection of the lay evidence of record from Jose Lopez Casanova, Jonathan G.’s cousin.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s reasons for not crediting the testimony of Jonathan G. are not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Acting Commissioner failed to sustain her burden of establishing that there is other work in the national economy that Jonathan G. could perform.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter the district court issued a decision affirming the Commissioner’s decision, Plaintiff appealed, and prior to any circuit briefing, the Commissioner chose not to defend the ALJ’s decision and instead, sought a voluntary remand. The parties agreed that on remand, the agency will:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003etake any steps necessary to fully develop the administrative record; provide Claimant an opportunity for a new hearing and to submit additional evidence in support of his claim; reevaluate the medical opinions; and issue a new decision.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/blockquote\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570687770821,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_3025656d-5f9a-45f6-a2f5-9be130503a91.jpg?v=1716417595"},{"product_id":"helen-t-v-comm-r-of-soc-sec-case-no-22-13874-11th-cir-may-18-2023","title":"Helen T. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. (11th Cir. May 18, 2023) - treatment regimen (excessive absences), RFC - voluntary remand","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 37\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 5\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 6\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 7\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 8\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 38\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 39\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 40\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 42\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 47\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 52\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 52\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHelen T. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c\/em\u003e Case No. 22-13874 (11th Cir. May 18, 2023\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Before Jordan, Newsom, and Lagoa, Circuit Judges)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eBriefs Included: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eAppellant’s Initial Brief, Appellee’s Unopposed Motion for Remand and Remand Order\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 53\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRFC - lack of support for findings\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - sustained work activities\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - absenteeism\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - treatment regimen\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 83-10\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1) T\u003cspan\u003ehe Commissioner failed to properly address the impact of Appellant’s treatment \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eregimen on her ability to perform sustained work activities.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) T\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ehe Commissioner’s finding that Appellant can perform a range of light work on a sustained basis is not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eThis case was an appeal from a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.  The district court issued an Opinion and Order, affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying Appellant’s claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits.  On appeal before the Eleventh Circuit, after Appellant filed her initial brief, the Commissioner chose not to defend the Commissioner’s decision and instead, sought a voluntary remand.  The parties agreed to the following remand terms:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003e Once the district court remands the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings, the Appeals Council will instruct the Administrative Law Judge to give further consideration to the residual functional capacity; give further consideration to Claimant’s symptoms; obtain medical expert testimony regarding her functional limitations resulting from her combination of severe impairments; offer her the opportunity for a hearing; address the evidence submitted to the Appeals Council; take any further action needed to complete the administrative record; and issue a new decision.  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/blockquote\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Motion to Remand at 1-2. The Eleventh Circuit granted the Motion in an Order dated  May 18, 2023, and remanded the case “to the district court with instructions to enter judgment and remand the matter to the Commissioner for the purpose of conducting further proceedings, as provided for by sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” Order at 1. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570690326725,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_4c7494b0-43ba-41a5-9b1a-ac49f4dc8651.jpg?v=1716417679"},{"product_id":"rhyan-p-v-comm-r-of-soc-sec-no-22-14090-2023-wl-3839378-11th-cir-may-12-2023","title":"[Rhyan P.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. (11th Cir. May 12, 2023) - medical opinions, RFC - voluntary remand","description":"\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 24\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 35\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 37\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 5\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 6\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 7\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 8\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 38\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 39\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 40\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 42\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 47\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 52\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 52\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 54\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e[Rhyan P.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e., No. 22-14090, 2023 WL 3839378 (11th Cir. May 12, 2023\u003c\/strong\u003e) (Before: Jill Pryor, Newsom, and Grant, Circuit Judges)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:  \u003c\/strong\u003eAppellant’s Initial Brief \u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - failure to address medical opinions\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eMedical opinions - supportability\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eMedical opinions - consistency\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eMedical opinions - articulation requirements\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSubjective symptoms - daily activities \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\u003c\/blockquote\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 83-10\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The Commissioner’s reasons for finding that the opinion of Dr. Gilad, Appellant’s \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003etreating neurosurgeon, was “less persuasive as the evidence does not support the degree of limitation” are not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s reasons for not incorporating the marked overhead reaching limitations found by Dr. Samuels, a consultative examiner, into the RFC assessment are not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eCourt decision:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\nThis case was an appeal from a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, denying Appellant’s claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits.  On appeal before the Eleventh Circuit, prior to any briefing, the Commissioner chose not to defend the Commissioner’s decision and instead sought a voluntary remand. \u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003eIn Appellee’s Unopposed Motion for Remand, the Commissioner argued “that remand is necessary and appropriate, and as a matter of agency discretion and in the interests of justice, the Commissioner petitions this Court for remand of this case.” Comm’r Motion at 1. The Commissioner represented that the parties agreed that on remand:\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\" style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003ethe Appeals Council will instruct the ALJ to further consider the medical opinions, applying the standards noted in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c; to further consider Appellant’s residual functional capacity; to further consider whether she can perform her past relevant work; if necessary, to obtain vocational expert evidence; to offer her the opportunity for a hearing; to take any further action needed to complete the administrative record; and to issue a new decision.\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\" style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003eComm’r Motion at 2. The Eleventh Circuit granted the motion and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to enter judgment and remand the matter to the Commissioner for the purpose of conducting further proceedings, as provided for by sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Order at 1.\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/blockquote\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570693505221,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_d3192ca6-55c9-4023-9106-6bedb48755cf.jpg?v=1716417779"},{"product_id":"rhyan-p-v-comm-r-of-soc-sec-no-22-14090-2023-wl-3839378-11th-cir-may-12-2023-copy","title":"Sharpe v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin. (11th Cir. 2022) - interacting with others, treating physician (old law)","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 37\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 5\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 6\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 7\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 8\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 38\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 39\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 40\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 42\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 47\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 52\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 52\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 54\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 55\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 55\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: left;\" class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSharpe v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e., No. 20-14350, 2022 WL 152229 (11th Cir. 2022)\u003c\/strong\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e(Decision by Circuit Judges Wilson, Rosenbaum, and Jill Pryor) (per curiam)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs Included: \u003c\/strong\u003eAppellant’s Initial Brief and Appellant’s Reply Brief  \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - relationship with PRTF findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – interacting with co-workers, supervisors and the public\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - post DLI evidence\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTreating physician’s opinion (old law) - good cause\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRetrospective medical opinions\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMental domains - interacting with others\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpecific impairments - visual impairments\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEvaluation of anxiety \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-9p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1) \u003cspan\u003eWhether the mental residual functional capacity finding does not properly account \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003efor the credited marked limitations in interacting with others.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether the Commissioner’s rejection of treating psychiatrist Dr. Co’s opinion was not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: left;\"\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eAppellant, a Navy veteran, argued that the ALJ erred in assessing his RFC in finding that he could occasionally interact with supervisors and coworkers. 2022 WL 152229, at *1. The Eleventh Circuit agreed that substantial evidence did not support this finding as: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003e [t]he record reflects that due to his anxiety and other psychological impairments, Sharpe was unable to interact with anyone outside of his immediate family. Over a six-year period, he left his home no more than a dozen times.  To avoid interacting with others, he would refuse to answer the door to his home, pick up the phone if it was ringing, or allow his children to have friends over.  His anxiety was so severe that he was unable to leave his home to attend his daughter’s high school graduation or his father’s funeral.  When faced with having to interact with someone outside his family, Sharpe would become agitated and angry and end up sick in bed for days. Given that Sharpe’s social network did not extend beyond his immediate family, we cannot say that the record before us contains evidence that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion that Sharpe was able to have occasional interaction with supervisors and coworkers in a working environment.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/blockquote\u003e\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003e Id\u003c\/em\u003e. at *6.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: left;\"\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003e The court reached this conclusion despite the absence of medical records from the date of the claimant’s discharge from the Navy until his date last insured, noting that due to the claimant’s inability to leave his home, he rarely received medical care.\u003cem\u003e Id.\u003c\/em\u003e at *2. Thus, all records came from the period after the date last insured, and included a psychological examination three months after his DLI, which confirmed that the claimant had not received medical treatment as he was unwilling to leave his house to visit a doctor’s office. The psychologist observed that the claimant “did not make eye contact during the examination, displayed little spontaneous speech, and had a distant and guarded attitude” and diagnosed the claimant with panic disorder, agoraphobia, and avoidant personality disorder. \u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e He observed that the claimant was:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003e “quite limited” in his ability to handle abstraction and had impaired recent and remote memory. [He] opined that Sharpe was “severely impaired” in his capability to interact appropriately with others, “moderately impaired” in his ability to adapt to workplace stressors, and “mildly impaired” in his ability to understand and remember detailed instructions and to sustain attention for extended periods of time. [The psychologist] concluded that Sharpe’s anxiety disorder was “treatable” but noted that his reluctance to interact with others was “more chronic.”\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/blockquote\u003e\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003e Id.\u003c\/em\u003e at *3 (record citations omitted).\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The claimant also saw a VA psychiatrist on five occasions over a 9-month period who diagnosed generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder with agoraphobia, insomnia, REM sleep disorder, mood disorder, and somatoform disorder, and treated the claimant with medications, which were changed many times. \u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. However, even with medication, the claimant reported no improvement, remaining unable to leave his house and after approximately nine months of treatment, the psychiatrist concluded that “medication trials have been unsuccessful to address all of [Sharpe’s] symptoms, including his difficulty in leaving . . . home for ordinary activities.” \u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. The psychiatrist opined that the claimant had “no useful ability” to accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors, get along with co-workers or peers without unduly distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes, and deal with normal work stress.\u003cem\u003e Id\u003c\/em\u003e. at *4. He further opined that the claimant “had extreme limitations” in maintaining social functioning and was precluded from working with others and ultimately opined that the claimant’s anxiety-related disorder left him with a “complete inability to function independently outside” of his home.\u003cem\u003e Id.\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003e In the decision under review, the ALJ had found that the claimant had a marked limitation in “only one area: interacting with others.” \u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. In support, the ALJ stated that the claimant’s primary problem appeared to be “severe social anxiety that exacerbated after his retirement from the military to the point that he has very little interaction with others, but it appears to mostly occur in large crowds of people.” \u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. In assessing the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ found that he could “have no more than occasional interaction with supervisors and coworkers; and have no interaction with the general public.” \u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. at *5. While the ALJ claimed that he relied on the psychologist’s report for this finding, the court found nothing in the report supported the ALJ’s conclusion that “during the relevant time period,. . . he experienced anxiety only when he was in large groups and would be able to interact occasionally with supervisors or coworkers.” \u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. at *6 (emphasis in original). Rather, the court noted, the psychologist’s report reflected that the claimant was “generally unable to leave his home or interact with anyone outside his immediate family.” \u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: left;\"\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align: left;\"\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003e The court rejected the Commissioner’s argument that other medical evidence supported the ALJ’s assessment because the ALJ did not rely on that evidence “so we may not affirm on this basis.” \u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. at *7 (\u003cem\u003eciting Owens v. Heckler\u003c\/em\u003e, 748 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1984); \u003cem\u003eNewton v. Apfel\u003c\/em\u003e, 209 F.3d 448, 455 (5th Cir. 2000)). In any event, the court was not persuaded that the evidence cited supported the Commissioner’s position. \u003cem\u003eId.\u003c\/em\u003e The Eleventh Circuit concluded that “[a]lthough our standard of review is deferential, it does not mean that we ‘merely rubber[ ]stamp’ an ALJ’s decision” and the court “‘must scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the decision reached is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.’” \u003cem\u003eId\u003c\/em\u003e. (\u003cem\u003equoting Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e., 935 F.3d 1245, 1257 (11th Cir. 2019)) (internal quotation marks omitted). As the record failed to support the ALJ’s findings that the claimant “remained able to interact occasionally with co-workers or supervisors,” the court concluded that the ALJ erred in assessing the claimant’s RFC and “the case must be remanded.” \u003c\/span\u003e \u003cem\u003eld.\u003c\/em\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570698125509,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_085e2eae-95ef-4f54-8296-2d1e24e31876.jpg?v=1716417927"},{"product_id":"sharpe-v-comm-r-soc-sec-admin-no-20-14350-2022-wl-152229-11th-cir-2022-copy","title":"[Yocasta M.] v. Kijakazi  (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2024) - visual impairment, waiver of right to counsel, subjective complaints, mental RFC","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 57\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e[Yocasta M.] v. Kijakaz\u003c\/em\u003ei, No. 22-24081-CV, 2024 WL 1178961 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2024), \u003cem\u003ereport and recommendation adopted in part, rejected in part,\u003c\/em\u003e No. 22-24081-CIV, 2024 WL 1131041 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2024)\u003c\/strong\u003e (Decision by U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. and U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodan)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs Included:  \u003c\/strong\u003ePlaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s Reply Brief, Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to the District Judge  \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - need to consider severe and nonsevere impairments\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - relationship with PRTF findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - regulatory factors \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - work activity\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - regulatory factors \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - work activity\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVisual impairments\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWaiver of right to counsel \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eALJ's duty to develop the record for unrepresented claimant\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 58\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 83-10\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ failed to properly assess the impact of Plaintiff’s visual impairment on \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eher ability to work.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ failed to obtain a valid waiver of Plaintiff’s right to counsel and she was  p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003erejudiced by the lack of counsel as the ALJ failed to fully develop the record\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s reasons for discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony are not based on \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003esubstantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ committed reversible error in failing to incorporate any mental limitations in Plaintiff’s RFC assessment. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 59\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter full briefing, the U.S. Magistrate Judge recommended affirmance of the ALJ’s decision. After objections were filed, the district judge declined to adopt the R\u0026amp;R’s conclusion that “the ALJ did not err by not including any mental limitations in\u003cbr\u003e[Plaintiff’s] RFC” and remanded for further proceedings.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570699894981,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_6e8726e8-7b78-4689-92b9-528b2e3064cb.jpg?v=1716417995"},{"product_id":"yocasta-m-v-kijakazi-no-22-24081-cv-2024-wl-1178961-s-d-fla-jan-31-2024-copy","title":"[Ross A.] v. Kijakazi (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2023) - fibromyalgia, PT opinion, RFC, subjective symptoms","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 57\" class=\"page\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 59\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 59\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e[Ross A.] v. Kijakazi\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e, No. 8:22-CV-1393-CPT, 2023 WL 6307181 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2023)\u003c\/strong\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e(Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite, by consent) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs Included: \u003c\/strong\u003ePlaintiff’s Memorandum and Plaintiff’s Reply Brief \u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eTopics addressed\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRFC - post-DLI evidence\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003e Weight of evidence from a physical therapist\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTestimony of lay witnesses\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEstablishing onset\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003eEvaluation of fibromyalgia\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eFibromyalgia – waxing and waning nature - \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003elongitudinal record must be \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003econsidered\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFiling application before entitlement\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw of the case\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePost hoc rationalization \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCourt remand orders – duty to follow\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eRemand for award of benefits - entitlement clear from the record\u003c\/span\u003e \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 60\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 83-20 (\u003cem\u003eNote: rescinded and replaced by SSR 18-01p and 18-02p\u003c\/em\u003e)   \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 06-03p (\u003cem\u003eNote: rescinded effective March 27, 2017\u003c\/em\u003e)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 83-10\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 12-2p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  Whether the ALJ complied with this Court’s prior remand order in evaluating the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eseverity of Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia and in failing to evaluate the lay evidence from his family members.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether the ALJ’s reasons for according “little weight” to the Functional Capacity Evaluation completed by physical therapist Doug Buethe are supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Whether the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether the ALJ properly evaluated the severity of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003eAfter full briefing, the court remanded for further proceedings.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570702909637,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_f58a968b-f649-4c91-9f4c-16bcc1c83ed5.jpg?v=1716418088"},{"product_id":"ross-a-v-kijakazi-no-8-22-cv-1393-cpt-2023-wl-6307181-m-d-fla-sept-28-2023-copy","title":"James J. v. Kijakazi (S.D. Fla Nov. 20, 2023) - medical opinions, RFC, subjective symptoms, past work","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 59\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 61\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 61\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"column\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eJames J. v. Kijakazi\u003c\/em\u003e, Case No. 1:22-CV-21659-GAYLES\/TORRES (S.D. Fla Nov. 20, 2023\u003c\/strong\u003e) (Order by Judge Darrin P. Gayles adopting R\u0026amp;R of U.S. Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase: \u003c\/strong\u003ePlaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Order Adopting the R\u0026amp;R \u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 61\" class=\"page\"\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 61\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - lack of support for findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - assistive device\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePast relevant work - required findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions  - supportability\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions - consistency \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions  - articulation requirements\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - required findings \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - regulatory factors \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVocational testimony - hypothetical question \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 62\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 82-62  (\u003cem\u003eNote: rescinded and replaced by SSR 24-2p\u003c\/em\u003e) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 83-10\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ’s reasons for not crediting the limitations found by Dr. Padron, \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlaintiff’s treating physician, are not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff can perform the exertional demands of light work is not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s reasons for not crediting the statements of Plaintiff are not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff can return to his past relevant work as a security officer and security guard are not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003eAfter 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\u003cbr\u003eterms and the Magistrate Judge issued a R\u0026amp;R recommending remand which was granted by the court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570706710725,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_ecf1269e-785b-4efa-816f-3e73ddc1fbf4.jpg?v=1716418240"},{"product_id":"alicia-s-v-kijakazi-no-22-21947-cv-2023-wl-7129987-s-d-fla-sept-27-2023","title":"[Alicia S.] v. Kijakazi (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2023) - new AC evidence, medical opinions, RFC, other work, subjective complaints","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 62\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e[Alicia S.] v. Kijakazi\u003c\/em\u003e, No. 22-21947-CV, 2023 WL 7129987 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2023)\u003c\/strong\u003e (Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Eduardo I. Sanchez, by consent)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e \u003c\/span\u003ePlaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Reply Brief\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics\u003c\/strong\u003e addressed:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNew evidence submitted to the Appeals Council \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - lack of support for findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions - supportability\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions - consistency \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective complaints - good work history \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective complaints - daily activities\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eVocational testimony - hypothetical question \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1) The Appeals Council committed reversible error in failing to remand this matter \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eto the ALJ for consideration of the newly submitted evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s reasons for finding the opinion of Dr. G., Plaintiff’s longtime treating pulmonologist, to be “unpersuasive” are not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment is not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s stated reasons for discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony are not based on substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e5) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Acting Commissioner failed to sustain her burden of establishing that there is other work in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 63\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter full briefing, the court remanded for further proceedings.\u003cspan\u003e     \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570709856453,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_a74a439d-15f8-4bd7-ae98-3d11af64f59d.jpg?v=1716418334"},{"product_id":"alicia-s-v-kijakazi-no-22-21947-cv-2023-wl-7129987-s-d-fla-sept-27-2023-copy","title":"[Mark S.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2023) - adult disabled child's case, young adult claim","description":"\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 62\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 64\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 64\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e[Mark S.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c\/em\u003e, No. 8:22-CV-785-DNF, 2023 WL 5091355 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2023) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier, by consent) \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBriefs for purchase: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e Plaintiff's Memorandum and Plaintiff's Reply Brief\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed:  \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdult child's disability benefits\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEstablishing onset  \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior claim file\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRFC - failure to include credited opinions\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRFC - relationship with PRTF findings\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eRFC - interacting with others\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003eoung adult claims - parents’ statements \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMedical opinions  - supportability\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 65\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSubjective complaints - improper focus on objective evidence\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eMental domains - interacting with others\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSocial Security Ruling 11-2p\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSocial Security Ruling 18-01p\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ failed to comply with SSR 18-01p in determining the established onset \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003edate of Plaintiff’s disability.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s mental residual functional capacity assessment is not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ failed to properly consider the statements of Plaintiff’s parents as required by SSR 11-2p.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s reasons for finding the opinion of Dr. Lopez, Plaintiff’s longtime treating psychiatrist, to be unpersuasive, are not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e5) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s reasons for not crediting Plaintiff’s testimony are not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter full briefing, the court remanded for further proceedings.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 66\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570713231557,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_73aaa141-d011-4c07-a0af-74719fd65c20.jpg?v=1716418438"},{"product_id":"mark-s-v-comm-r-of-soc-sec-no-8-22-cv-785-dnf-2023-wl-5091355-m-d-fla-aug-9-2023-copy","title":"[Robert U.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2023) - SDM, RFC, medical opinions, subjective symptoms","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 66\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e[\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eRobert U.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c\/em\u003e, No. 2:22-CV-241-MAP, 2023 WL 3815256 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 2023) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo, by consent)\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:  \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003ePlaintiff’s Memorandum and \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003ePlaintiff’s Reply Memorandum\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpecific impairments: evaluation of anxiety\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSpecific impairments: social phobia\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - interacting with\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e with co-workers, supervisors and the public\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - relationship with PRTF findings \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - work environment is different from medical clinic or home environment \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEvaluation of mental impairments - fluctuating symptoms typical\\\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMental impairments - generalized findings about speech, thought content, and \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eintelligence not inconsistent with mental illness\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeight of a single decision maker \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTreating physician’s opinion (old law) – good cause \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eTestimony of lay witnesses\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEvaluation of anxiety\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEvaluation of social phobia\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-2p (old law)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ improperly relied on the opinion of a lay State agency single decision \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003emaker whose opinion is not entitled to any weight.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s mental residual functional capacity assessment finding does not properly account for [Plaintiff’s] inability to interact with others.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s reasons for according “little weight” to the opinions of Dr. Turnberg, Plaintiff’s longtime treating psychiatrist, are not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 67\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) The ALJ’s reasons for according “little weight” to the testimony of Plaintiff’s girlfriend, SW, are not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter full briefing, the court remanded for further proceedings.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570716934341,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_bbeddeeb-0c1e-4d9b-9156-92d1a8cf1a26.jpg?v=1716418531"},{"product_id":"robert-u-v-comm-r-of-soc-sec-no-2-22-cv-241-map-2023-wl-3815256-m-d-fla-june-5-2023-copy","title":"[Tonya L.] v. Kijakazi (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2023) - medical opinions, RFC, subjective symptoms","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 71\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e[Tonya L.] v. Kijakazi\u003c\/em\u003e, No. 22-CV-61236, 2023 WL 2562649 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2023), \u003cem\u003ereport and recommendation adopted\u003c\/em\u003e, No. 22-61236-CIV, 2023 WL 2560903 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2023) \u003c\/strong\u003e(R\u0026amp;R by U.S. Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss, adopted by Chief U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase\u003c\/strong\u003e:  Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment  and Plaintiff's Reply Brief  \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEstablishing onset  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - assistive device \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - required findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eRFC - ALJ must build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his or her conclusion\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 72\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions - required findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - ALJ must consider reasons for not seeking treatment \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eALJ mischaracterization of the record\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003ePost hoc justification\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 83-10 \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 18-01p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ failed to comply with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520b, 416.920b in evaluating \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ethe report of Dr. Adam, a consultative physician.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s RFC assessment for the period from the alleged onset date of March 23, 2018, to August 3, 2020, the established onset date, is not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The ALJ’s stated reasons for discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony for the period prior to August 3, 2020, are not based on substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter full briefing, a Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending remand, which was adopted in full by the district court.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570721849541,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_e0a74883-b28d-451b-9977-494ed47c307e.jpg?v=1716418687"},{"product_id":"tonya-l-v-kijakazi-no-22-cv-61236-2023-wl-2562649-s-d-fla-feb-28-2023-copy","title":"[Jose A.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2023) - failure to translate records into English, hearing impairment, RFC,  subjective complaints","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 73\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e[Jose \u003c\/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eA.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,\u003c\/em\u003e No. 6:21-CV-1909-EJK, 2023 WL 2136429 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2023) (EAJA Order) \u003c\/strong\u003e(Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd, by consent)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlaintiff’s Memorandum and Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - relationship with PRTF findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - noise level\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - treatment regimen\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003eHearing impairment\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarmless error\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: none \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1) Whether remand is required as the ALJ failed to translate all documents in the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003erecord from Spanish to English.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether the ALJ failed to properly address the severity of Plaintiff’s hearing impairment.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhether the ALJ properly evaluated the severity of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter fully briefing, the court remanded for further proceedings. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570733973701,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_16cf0972-c980-49ba-9cdd-017b68658665.jpg?v=1716419041"},{"product_id":"jose-a-v-comm-r-of-soc-sec-no-6-21-cv-1909-ejk-2023-wl-2136429-m-d-fla-feb-21-2023-copy","title":"[Antonio F.] v. Kijakazi(S.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2022) - failure to consider mild mental limitations in assessing RFC, new evidence submitted to the AC, subjective complaints","description":"\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 74\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e[Anto\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cem\u003enio F. v. K\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cem style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eijakazi\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cem style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e, \u003c\/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eNo. 21-80456-CIV, 2022 WL 17987822 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2022), \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eon reconsideratio\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003en, No. 21-CV-80456-BER, 2023 WL 2388657 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2023) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e(Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, by consent)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Plaintiff's Reply Brief; Plaintiff's Motion for Rehearing; Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Rehearing  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 75\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/h4\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeverity standard \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – need to consider severe and nonsevere impairments \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - relationship with PRTF findings \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - daily activities \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAppeals Council - new evidence\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eHarmless error\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRuling addressed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The Appeals Council committed reversible error in failing to remand this matter \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eto the ALJ for consideration of the newly submitted evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s reasons for discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony are not based on substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s finding that Antonio F.’s medically determinable mental impairment of depression is not a severe impairment is not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The ALJ committed reversible error in failing to incorporate any mental limitations in her RFC assessment. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 77\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe court initially affirmed the denial of benefits. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asserting the court erred in finding that the ALJ properly considered\u003cbr\u003ePlaintiff’s mental limitations in assessing his residual functional capacity, which was granted, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570737938629,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_e595491d-e46e-4895-b3ae-c9975afad986.jpg?v=1716419124"},{"product_id":"lola-c-v-kijakazi-case-no-8-21-cv-2403-sdm-tgw-m-d-fl-mar-2-2023-report-and-recommendation-adopted-m-d-fl-mar-17-2023-copy","title":"Delvin S. v. Kijakazi (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2023)- RFC - lack of support for findings, medical opinions, daily activities need not be objectively verified","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 66\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 71\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 68\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDelvin S. v. Kijakazi\u003c\/em\u003e, Case No. 1:21-cv-22755-Louis (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2023)\u003c\/strong\u003e (Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis, by consent)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase:  \u003c\/strong\u003ePlaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Plaintiff’s Reply Brief; and Order Remanding Case \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003eRFC- lack of support for findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC - reliance on outdated assessments of State agency medical consultants\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions - supportability\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions - consistency \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms - daily activities need not be objectively verified \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective complaints - treatment regimen\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective complaints - ALJ must consider reasons for not seeking treatment\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePost hoc justification \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 69\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRuling addressed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e1)  The ALJ’s reasons for finding the opinion of Dr. Allaf, Plaintiff's longtime treating pulmonologist, to be \"unpersuasive\" are not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment is not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe ALJ’s stated reasons for discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony is not based on substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Acting Commissioner failed to sustain her burden of establishing that there is other work in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter full briefing, the court remanded for further proceedings.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c!----\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43570770444485,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_e76dd653-a207-41fb-8c72-ce29104f397e.jpg?v=1716420335"},{"product_id":"summary-of-briefs-by-topic-and-circuit-download-link-in-description","title":"Summary of Briefs by Topic and Circuit (Download link in description)","description":"\u003ch1\u003eClick the link \u003ca href=\"https:\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/2025_SUMMARY_OF_BRIEFS_BY_TOPIC_AND_CIRCUITI._wpd.pdf?v=1757447818\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"\u003ehere\u003c\/a\u003e\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e to download the summary!!\u003c\/h1\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43625476456645,"sku":null,"price":0.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/download_2_77185d23-8f8e-44d9-b972-9b32d7bd9950.jpg?v=1716987867"},{"product_id":"stephen-p-v-bisignano-case-no-2-24-cv-10888-d-n-j-june-12-2025-plaintiff-s-brief-and-remand-order","title":"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","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 37\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 5\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 6\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 7\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 29\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStephen P. v. Bisignano\u003c\/em\u003e, Case No. 2:24-CV-10888 (D.N.J. June 12, 2025) \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e(Order \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eby U.S. District Judge Jamel K. Semper)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlaintiff’s Brief and remand order \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRight to Counsel \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWaiver of right to counsel \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRequirements for legal representatives \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpecial rules for young claimants under age 25 \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpecial rules for claimants under age 25 – extra help \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eALJ’s duty to develop the record for unrepresented claimant \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDue process violation – not scheduling supplemental hearing as promised \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – work environment is different from medical clinic or home environment \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions – supportability \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions – consistency \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFailure to obtain mental health treatment \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms – treatment regimen \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTestimony of lay witnesses \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 85-15 \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 11-2p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed:. \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ failed to obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver of Stephen P.’s right \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eto counsel and he was prejudiced by his lack of counsel. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2)  The ALJ committed reversible error in not scheduling a second hearing as promised to the unrepresented claimant and his mother. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3)  The ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion of Dr. Kirschner, who examined Stephen P. post-hearing, at the ALJ’s specific request.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 30\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4) The ALJ’s reasons for not crediting Stephen P.’s subjective complaints and the statements of his mother are not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter 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. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":44941563756741,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_1024x1024_2x_2d000ff1-b222-4c16-b617-3861e33c5449.webp?v=1753464283"},{"product_id":"louis-s-v-dudek-no-2-24-cv-08107-mef-d-n-j-apr-9-2025","title":"Louis S. v. Dudek  (D.N.J. Apr. 9, 2025) - definition of medical source, need to address medical opinions, medium work RFC, RFC - ALJ’s lay interpretation of the record, subjective symptoms","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 37\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 5\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 6\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 7\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 29\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 30\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLouis S. v. Dudek\u003c\/em\u003e, No. 2:24-CV-08107-MEF (D.N.J. Apr. 9, 2025) (Decision by U.S. District Judge Michael E. Farbiarz) \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlaintiff’s Brief and remand order \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDefinition of a medical source opinion \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions – need to address \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – medium work \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – reliance on outdated assessments of the State agency medical consultants \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – lack of support for findings \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – reliance on ALJ’s lay interpretation of the record \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms – mischaracterization of record \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarmless error \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 83-10 \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ committed reversible error in failing to address the assessment of PT \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcIntosh. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2)  The ALJ’s finding that Louis S. can perform the exertional demands of medium work is not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3)  The RFC finding is the product of a lay evaluation and is not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4)  The ALJ’s reasons for not crediting Louis S.’s subjective complaints are not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter 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. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":44943527411909,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_1024x1024_2x_2d000ff1-b222-4c16-b617-3861e33c5449.webp?v=1753464283"},{"product_id":"glenn-c-v-dudek-case-no-2-22-cv-7410-2025-wl-830006-d-n-j-mar-17-2025-decision-by-u-s-magistrate-judge-norah-mccann-king-by-consent","title":"[Glenn C.] v. Dudek (D.N.J. Mar. 17, 2025) - pre-onset evidence, RFC, subjective symptoms, VE  testimony – mischaracterization of record","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 24\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 35\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 37\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 5\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 6\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 7\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 29\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 30\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 31\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e[Glenn C.] v. Dudek\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e, Case No. 2:22-cv-7410, 2025 WL 830006 (D.N.J. Mar. 17, 2025)\u003c\/strong\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e(Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King, by consent) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlaintiff’s Brief, Plaintiff’s Reply Brief and court decision \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePre-onset evidence \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – lack of support for findings \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – manipulative limitations \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms – required findings \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms – regulatory factors \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVocational testimony – mischaracterization of record \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTransferability of Skills \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarmless error \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 82-41 \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 83-10 \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 16-3p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The Commissioner failed to meet her burden of establishing that there is other \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ework in the national economy that Glenn C. can perform. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2)  The ALJ committed reversible error in failing to even consider or address any evidence which pre-dated the alleged onset date of March 24, 2018. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3)  The ALJ’s RFC assessment is not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4)  The ALJ’s reasons for not crediting Glenn C.’s subjective complaints are not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: After full briefing, the court issued an opinion and remanded for further proceedings. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":44943530655941,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_1024x1024_2x_2d000ff1-b222-4c16-b617-3861e33c5449.webp?v=1753464283"},{"product_id":"angela-s-v-o-malley-no-cv-23-22441-rk-2024-wl-4563910-d-n-j-oct-24-2024-decision-by-u-s-district-judge-robert-kirsch","title":"[Angela S.] v. O’Malley (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2024) - medical opinions, RFC – reliance on ALJ’s lay interpretation of the record, sentence six new evidence remand","description":"\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 31\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e[Angela S.] v. O’Malley\u003c\/strong\u003e,\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNo. CV 23-22441 (RK), 2024 WL 4563910 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2024)\u003c\/strong\u003e (Decision by U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlaintiff’s Brief, Plaintiff’s Reply Brief and court decision \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions – supportability \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions – consistency \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions – articulation requirements \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – reliance on ALJ’s lay interpretation of the record \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSentence six remands due to new evidence \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRuling addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e• Social Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ did not properly consider Dr. Tishuk’s opinion. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2)  The residual functional capacity finding is the product of a lay evaluation and is not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3)  Remand pursuant to Sentence Six is merited due to new and material evidence submitted to the Appeals Council. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: After full briefing, the court issued an opinion and remanded for further proceedings. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":44943533899973,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_1024x1024_2x_2d000ff1-b222-4c16-b617-3861e33c5449.webp?v=1753464283"},{"product_id":"s-r-v-o-malley-case-no-1-23-cv-03004-kmw-d-n-j-july-31-2024-decision-by-u-s-district-judge-karen-m-williams","title":"S.R. v. O’Malley  (D.N.J. July 31, 2024) - RFC - assistive device, past work, right to cross-examine VE","description":"\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 31\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 32\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.R. v. O’Malley\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c\/em\u003e Case No. 1:23-cv-03004-KMW (D.N.J. July 31, 2024)\u003c\/strong\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e(Decision by U.S. District Judge Karen M. Williams) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlaintiff’s Brief, Plaintiff’s Reply Brief and remand order\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – lack of support for findings \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – assistive device \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – manipulative limitations \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – need to consider severe and non-severe impairments \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePast relevant work – lack of support for RFC assessment \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVocational testimony – right to examine vocational witness \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 82-61 (\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNote: rescinded and replaced by SSR 24-2p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 83-10 \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-9p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ’s finding that S.R.’s multiple serious physical impairments are  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eaccommodated by a finding that she could sustain the full range of light work with no further restrictions, cannot be sustained. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2)  The ALJ’s RFC finding, which fails to address or account for any mental limitations, is not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e3)  The ALJ did not make a finding supported by substantial evidence that S.R. could return to her past skilled work as a bank teller.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4)  The ALJ erred in not permitting S.R.’s hearing counsel to properly cross-examine the vocational witness, who was not an impartial witness. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 33\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e After full briefing, and oral argument, the court issued an Order and remanded for further proceedings. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":44943547171013,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_1024x1024_2x_2d000ff1-b222-4c16-b617-3861e33c5449.webp?v=1753464283"},{"product_id":"tuylia-r-v-o-malley-no-2-22-cv-2322-2024-wl-3493796-d-n-j-july-22-2024-decision-by-u-s-magistrate-judge-norah-mccann-king-by-consent","title":"[Tuylia R.] v. O’Malley  (D.N.J. July 22, 2024) - morbid obesity, medical opinions, subjective complaints, sentence 6 remands due to new evidence","description":"\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 31\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 32\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 33\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e[Tuylia R.] v. O’Malle\u003c\/strong\u003ey\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, No. 2:22-CV-2322, 2024 WL 3493796 (D.N.J. July 22, 2024) (Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King, by consent) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlaintiff’s Brief, Plaintiff’s Reply Brief and court decision \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions – supportability\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions – consistency\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions – articulation requirements\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms – regulatory factors\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms – required findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eObesity \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarmless error \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSentence six remands due to new evidence\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSocial Security Ruling 96-8p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 02-01p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003eSocial Security Ruling 19-2p\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ failed to properly consider the impact of Tuylia R.’s severe impairment \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eof morbid obesity on her ability to sustain work activities. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2)  The ALJ’s reasons for not crediting the opinion of Dr. Vekhnis, who examined Tuylia R. at the Commissioner’s request, are not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3)  The ALJ failed to properly evaluate Tuylia R.’s subjective complaints and testimony. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4)  The court should also remand Tuylia R.’s case pursuant to the sixth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) in light of the new and material evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e After full briefing, the court issued an opinion and remanded for further proceedings. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":44943557230789,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_1024x1024_2x_2d000ff1-b222-4c16-b617-3861e33c5449.webp?v=1753464283"},{"product_id":"curtis-p-v-o-malley-case-no-1-24-3288-svh-d-s-c-feb-5-2025-decision-by-u-s-magistrate-shiva-v-hodges-by-consent","title":"Curtis P. v. O’Malley (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 2025) - due process violation: scheduling then cancelling remand hearing without notice, plaintiff opposed remand and successfully sought remand for an award of benefits","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 14\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 38\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCurtis P. v. O’Malley\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e, Case No. 1:24-3288-SVH (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 2025)\u003c\/strong\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e(Decision \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eby U.S. Magistrate Shiva V. Hodges, by consent)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlaintiff’s Brief, Response to Motion to Remand (seeking \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003epayment of benefits); Opinion remanding for a calculation of benefits \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – lack of support for findings\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRFC – assistive device\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions - supportability \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMedical opinions – consistency\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeight of VA disability finding\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVocational testimony – hypothetical question\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eObsolete jobs\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003eDue process violation – scheduling then cancelling remand hearing without \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003enotice \u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRemand for award of benefits – entitlement clear from the record \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRemand for award of benefits – delay \u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRulings addressed\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e none\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ erred in issuing an unfavorable decision without a new hearing. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2)  Following court remand, the ALJ again failed to properly evaluate the medical opinion evidence as directed by this Court. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3)  The ALJ did not properly consider the VA disability rating decision or underlying related evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4)  The ALJ’s finding that “the record does not indicate that a hand-held device is medically required” is not supported by substantial evidence.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size: 0.875rem;\"\u003e5)  The Commissioner failed to sustain his burden of establishing that there is other work in the national economy that Curtis P. could perform.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e6) This Court should award benefits for the relevant period.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 39\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAfter Plaintiff filed his brief, the Commissioner sought a remand for further proceedings. Plaintiff  opposed the remand, arguing the Court should remand for an award of benefits. In a 39-page opinion, the court agreed and remanded for calculation of benefits. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":44943563653317,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_1a4e28c6-154c-4084-9241-e60ca20cad05.jpg?v=1715343742"},{"product_id":"reginald-r-v-o-malley-case-no-2-21-02905-mgb-d-s-c-aug-20-2024-decision-by-u-s-magistrate-mary-gordan-baker-by-consent","title":"Reginald R. v. O’Malley (D.S.C. Aug. 20, 2024) - weight of CE (old law), manipulative limitations, lay evidence, court remanded for an award of benefits","description":"\u003cdiv title=\"Page 14\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv title=\"Page 38\" class=\"page\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"page\" title=\"Page 39\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"layoutArea\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"column\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReginald R. v. O’Malley\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c\/em\u003e Case No. 2:21-02905-MGB (D.S.C. Aug. 20, 2024)\u003c\/strong\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e(Decision by U.S. Magistrate Mary Gordan Baker, by consent) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBriefs for purchase\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePlaintiff’s Brief and Plaintiff’s Reply Brief and court decision remanding with directions to award benefits \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTopics addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeight of evidence from a consultative provider (old law) \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIssues reserved to the commissioner \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – lack of support for findings \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRFC – manipulative limitations \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTestimony of lay witnesses \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms – required findings \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubjective symptoms – daily activities \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWaiver – failure of Commissioner to respond to issue in Plaintiff’s briefing \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRemand for award of benefits – entitlement clear from the record \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRemand for award of benefits – delay \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRuling addressed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e• Social Security Ruling 96-8p \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIssues briefed: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1)  The ALJ’s reasons for according “minimal weight” to the opinion of Dr. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeichner, who administered the only neuropsychological examination in the record, are not based on substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e2)  The ALJ’s finding that Reginald R. can frequently reach, finger, and feel is not supported by substantial evidence. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3)  Ms. R.’s testimony was not properly addressed, and Reginald R.’s allegations of post-stroke residual limitations were erroneously rejected. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4)  This Court should remand for an award of benefits. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourt decision\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAfter full briefing, the court issued a decision and remanded with directions to award benefits. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","brand":"Sarah Bohr Publications","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":44943572009157,"sku":null,"price":75.0,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/files\/istockphoto-1405452812-612x612_1a4e28c6-154c-4084-9241-e60ca20cad05.jpg?v=1715343742"}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0027\/8170\/8349\/collections\/6e82c350-9a2f-4c20-84de-7537fc9eb752.png?v=1754660873","url":"https:\/\/sarahbohrpublications.com\/collections\/winning-federal-court-briefs.oembed?page=5","provider":"Sarah Bohr Publications","version":"1.0","type":"link"}