1. 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 – (Case of S.D) – those are the initials of our client.
2. 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 the period the ALJ felt she was not disabled.
3. We won a case where we did a lot of research and cited over 40 cases in support of our argument.
4. 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, pulmonologist, two orthopedists (Dr. W and Dr. B), a varicose vein specialist (Dr. G), as well as by physical therapists, a social worker, and occupational therapist. The record documents at least 23 medical visits in 2015; about a dozen in 2016; some 30 visits in 2017; and over 50 medical appointments or treatments between January and July 2018. The frequency of Plaintiff’s medical treatments alone would make it impossible for her to perform full-time work on a sustained basis. Therefore the ALJ’s RFC finding was not supported by substantial evidence.
A claimant’s RFC must reflect his ability to perform work on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(b), (c).
5. 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 normal. (R. 22.) But the diagnostic test for this condition is an optic nerve exam or a lumbar puncture (which, in fact, confirmed high pressure, see R. 355 and fns. 7, 14), not an EEG, and an MRI would only rule out other conditions. The ALJ erred in using these tests as evidence that the condition was not as severe as alleged. He cited to the same tests when addressing Ms. R. SFNP. (R. 21.) But SFNP is not diagnosed, nor is its severity judged, by EEG or MRI. It is diagnosed through a skin biopsy, which confirmed Ms. R. had it (R. 912), and is a progressive disorder characterized by severe pain that gradually spreads from the feet. See fn. 6. So the fact that she had a normal MRI or EEG was irrelevant to this impairment.
 See “Pseudotumor Cerebri,” Mayo Clinic. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pseudotumor-cerebri/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20354036
6. The ALJ found that Ms. K’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 Ms. K’s had alleged vision, respiratory, or orthopedic problems, but were irrelevant to her actual impairments.
7. 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 from Federal Court and she will get another opportunity to win the case at a new hearing.
*Not sure if we should also write that we will prepare her for & represent her at the next hearing and we’re confident that she will finally receive justice and the benefits she deserves.