Stephen P. v. Bisignano (D.N.J. June 12, 2025) - Waiver of right to counsel, duty to develop the record for unrepresentative claimant, requirements for legal representatives, younger claimants, medical opinions, subjective complaints

Stephen P. v. Bisignano (D.N.J. June 12, 2025) - Waiver of right to counsel, duty to develop the record for unrepresentative claimant, requirements for legal representatives, younger claimants, medical opinions, subjective complaints

Regular price $75.00 Sale

Stephen P. v. Bisignano, Case No. 2:24-CV-10888 (D.N.J. June 12, 2025) (Order by U.S. District Judge Jamel K. Semper)

Briefs for purchase: Plaintiff’s Brief and remand order

Topics addressed:

  • Right to Counsel

  • Waiver of right to counsel

  • Requirements for legal representatives

  • Special rules for young claimants under age 25

  • Special rules for claimants under age 25 – extra help

  • ALJ’s duty to develop the record for unrepresented claimant

  • Due process violation – not scheduling supplemental hearing as promised

  • RFC – work environment is different from medical clinic or home environment

  • Medical opinions – supportability

  • Medical opinions – consistency

  • Failure to obtain mental health treatment

  • Subjective symptoms – treatment regimen

  • Testimony of lay witnesses

    Rulings addressed:

  • Social Security Ruling 85-15 

  • Social Security Ruling 11-2p 

Issues briefed:.

1)  The ALJ failed to obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver of Stephen P.’s right to counsel and he was prejudiced by his lack of counsel.

2)  The ALJ committed reversible error in not scheduling a second hearing as promised to the unrepresented claimant and his mother.

3)  The ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion of Dr. Kirschner, who examined Stephen P. post-hearing, at the ALJ’s specific request.

4) The ALJ’s reasons for not crediting Stephen P.’s subjective complaints and the statements of his mother are not supported by substantial evidence.

Court decision:

After Plaintiff briefed the merits, the Commissioner chose not to defend the ALJ’s decision and instead, sought a voluntary remand. The parties negotiated the remand terms and the court remanded for further proceedings.