We argued a case in Federal Court where we showed the ALJ’s evaluation of the claimant’s condition was flawed. The ALJ’s evaluation of the medical evidence betrays his unfamiliarity with her impairments. He suggested her pseudotumor cerebri had stabilized because, while “she complained of blurred vision, dizziness and headaches,” her EEG and brain scans were […]
Published on January 6th, 2021
Published on January 5th, 2021
The ALJ found that our client’s allegations were not entirely consistent with the evidence. Specifically, the ALJ noted that she had intact visual fields, normal motor strength and gait, and normal respiratory functioning and range of motion, among other normal physical findings. (R. 28.) These findings might have been relevant if our client had alleged […]
Published on January 4th, 2021
We took the case of a person who told us she went to several other attorneys – who all refused to take her case (or said they couldn’t help her) because the case was too difficult – before she came to us. We came up with a novel argument and recently got the case remanded […]
Published on January 10th, 2021
We won a case where we did a tremendous amount of legal research and cited 31 different cases in support of our arguments. Three of the cases cited were our own cases that we previously won in Federal Court.
Published on January 9th, 2021
We successfully appeal cases that were not completely denied but instead received partially favorable decisions and make sure our clients receive the full benefits they are entitled to and have been waiting for. We were recently successful on such a case by showing that the claimant was not able to maintain a schedule even during […]
Published on January 8th, 2021
We won a case where we did a lot of research and cited over 40 cases in support of our argument.
Published on January 7th, 2021
The ALJ’s finding is not supported by substantial evidence: SSR 96-08p requires the ALJ to base her RFC assessment on all the relevant evidence, including the effects of treatment, including limitations or restrictions imposed by factors such as the frequency of treatment and disruption to routine. Plaintiff’s was treated by a primary care physician, psychiatrist, […]