Mary G.R. v. O’Malley

Mary G.R. v. O’Malley, No. 2:24-cv-14219-SMM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2025) (Order by U.S. Magistrate Judge Shaniek Mills Maynard, by consent)

Briefs for purchase: Plaintiff’s Brief; e-mail to OGC attorney opposing remand for further proceedings and seeking remand for an award of benefits; Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Remand for an award of benefits

Topics addressed:

• Severity standard

• Past relevant work – 5-year rule

• Weight of treating physician (old law) – good cause

• Subjective symptoms – regulatory

• Subjective symptoms – daily activities 

• Remand for award of benefits – entitlement clear from the record 

Rulings addressed: 

• Social Security Ruling 83-5a
• Social Security Ruling 96-8p
• Social Security Ruling 24-2p 

Issues briefed:

1)  The ALJ’s finding that Mary G.R. could perform her past relevant work is not supported by substantial evidence as the jobs cited were performed more than five years prior to her date last insured. 

2)  The ALJ again failed to properly evaluate the opinion of Dr. Ward, Mary G.R.’s treating physician.

3)  Following court remand, the ALJ again failed to properly evaluate Mary G.R.’s subjective symptoms.

4)  The ALJ’s finding that Mary G.R.’s medically determinable impairment of depression was not a severe impairment is not based on substantial evidence.

5) Evidence submitted to the Appeals Council merits remand.

Court decision:
This case was remanded twice before the present case was filed. After Plaintiff filed her brief, the Commissioner sought Plaintiff’s consent to a voluntary remand. Plaintiff opposed the remand for further proceedings and, instead, sought a remand with instructions to award benefits. The Commissioner’s attorneys ultimately agreed to a remand with instructions to award benefits.