I. A. v. O’Malley, Case No. 1:23-20999-RBK (D.N.J. Apr. 26, 2024)

I. A. v. O’Malley, Case No. 1:23-20999-RBK (D.N.J. Apr. 26, 2024)

$100.00 Sale

I. 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)

Briefs for purchase: 

  • Plaintiff’s Brief 

  • Remand Order 

Topics addressed:

  • RFC - lack of support
  • RFC - required findings
  • Medical opinions (new law) – persuasiveness
  • Age categorie - mechanical application
  • Vocational testimony – mischaracterization of record
  • Remand for an award of benefits – delay

Rulings addressed:

  • Social Security Ruling 96-8p
  • Social Security Ruling 96-9p
  • Social Security Ruling 16-3p

Issues briefed: 

1) The step five finding is based on a mistake of fact.

2) The age categories were erroneously applied mechanically in a borderline situation.

3) The residual functional capacity finding is the product of a lay evaluation and is not supported by substantial evidence.

4) The ALJ erroneously discredited Dr. Bogacki’s opinion.

Court decision:
After Plaintiff briefed the merits, the Commissioner chose not to defend the ALJ’s decision and instead, sought a voluntary remand. The parties agreed that the case is remanded: 

 On remand, the Appeals Council will refer the case to an Administrative Law Judge with instructions to: offer Plaintiff the opportunity to present evidence and testify at a hearing; reassess the medical evidence and opinions of record; reassess Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, considering all of the medical evidence, opinions, and non-medical evidence of record; obtain new and additional evidence from a vocational expert; and issue a new decision. 


 Order at 1.