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

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

$75.00 Sale

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)

Briefs for purchase: Plaintiff’s Brief, Response to Motion to Remand (seeking payment of benefits); Opinion remanding for a calculation of benefits

Topics addressed:

  • RFC – lack of support for findings
  • RFC – assistive device
  • Medical opinions - supportability 
  • Medical opinions – consistency
  • Weight of VA disability finding
  • Vocational testimony – hypothetical question
  • Obsolete jobs
  • Due process violation – scheduling then cancelling remand hearing without notice 
  •  Remand for award of benefits – entitlement clear from the record 
  • Remand for award of benefits – delay 

Rulings addressed: none

Issues briefed:

1)  The ALJ erred in issuing an unfavorable decision without a new hearing.

2)  Following court remand, the ALJ again failed to properly evaluate the medical opinion evidence as directed by this Court.

3)  The ALJ did not properly consider the VA disability rating decision or underlying related evidence.

4)  The ALJ’s finding that “the record does not indicate that a hand-held device is medically required” is not supported by substantial evidence.

5)  The Commissioner failed to sustain his burden of establishing that there is other work in the national economy that Curtis P. could perform.

6) This Court should award benefits for the relevant period.

Court decision: 

After Plaintiff filed his brief, the Commissioner sought a remand for further proceedings. Plaintiff ’s 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.