Tom Krause, NOSSCR Litigation Director

Once again, I’m providing a snapshot of several recent District and Circuit court cases of interest. Below, I’ve included short summaries of each case, and more detailed explanations are available in the downloadable document at the bottom of the list.

Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 24-11233, 2025 WL 263388 (11th Cir. Jan. 22, 2025): Amanda Smith appealed the district court’s reduction of attorney’s fees under the EAJA. The court found the reduction was arbitrary and remanded for further proceedings.

Karen O. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 731 F. Supp. 3d 926 (S.D. Ohio 2024): Karen O. contested the denial of her disability insurance benefits. The court addressed issues related to attorney fees, including the reasonableness of the contingency fee and the reduction of the fee award by a hypothetical EAJA award. The court granted the motion for attorney fees in part, subject to modification. This case appears twice in the document, indicating it is a duplicate.       

Duran v. O’Malley, — F.Supp.3d — (D. Mass. 2024): Miguelina Duran challenged the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that the Appeals Council erred by not considering new vocational evidence. The court found the Council’s failure to consider the new evidence constituted an egregious error and remanded the case for further proceedings.     

Garcia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 732 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2024): Carlos Garcia sought judicial review of the denial of his disability benefits. The court found that the ALJ failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons for discounting the treating physician’s opinion and remanded the case for payment of benefits.     

M.M. v. O’Malley, 732 F. Supp. 3d 1126 (N.D. Cal. 2024): M.M. challenged the denial of his disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ failed to properly consider his insomnia and subjective symptom testimony. The court found that the ALJ did not provide clear and convincing reasons for rejecting M.M.’s symptom testimony and remanded the case for reconsideration of his residual functional capacity.   

Perez v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, — F. App’x — (11th Cir. 2024): Maribel Perez appealed the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that there was an apparent conflict between the vocational expert’s testimony and the DOT. The court found an apparent conflict and remanded the case for further proceedings.   

Wilson v. O’Malley, — F. App’x — (4th Cir. 2024): Megan Wilson appealed the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ improperly relied on objective findings to discredit her subjective testimony. The court vacated the decision and remanded the case for consideration in light of new precedent.  

Karissa B. v. O’Malley, 733 F. Supp. 3d 57 (D.R.I. 2024): Karissa B. challenged the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that the number of jobs available to her was not significant. The court agreed, finding that 10,100 jobs nationwide was not a significant number, and awarded benefits.   

Anna C. v. O’Malley, 734 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (D. Or. 2024): Anna C. sought review of the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ failed to consider her non-severe mental impairments. The court found errors in the ALJ’s analysis and remanded the case for further proceedings.   

Stephen D. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 734 F. Supp. 3d 729 (S.D. Ohio 2024): Stephen D. challenged the denial of his disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ erred in using “occasional interaction” instead of “superficial interaction” in his RFC. The court found no error and affirmed the decision. This case appears twice in the document, indicating it is a duplicate.      

Linger v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 22-2192, 2025 WL 40548 (4th Cir. Jan. 7, 2025): Matthew Dana Linger appealed the denial of his disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ failed to build a logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusions and gave too little weight to certain medical opinions. The court agreed, finding that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and remanded the case with instructions to grant disability benefits.

Walsh v. Colvin, No. 23-3184, 2025 WL 40559 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2025): Deborah Walsh appealed the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinions of her treating physician and other medical evidence. The court found that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the denial of benefits.

Hammond v. O’Malley, 735 F. Supp. 3d 567 (E.D. Pa. 2024): Doris Hammond challenged the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ failed to consider her PTSD and the opinion of her treating psychiatrist. The court found that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Yasmin V. v. O’Malley, 735 F. Supp. 3d 118 (D.R.I. 2024): Yasmin V. sought review of the denial of her disability benefits. The court found that the delays in her case were unconscionable and ordered the Commissioner to grant disability benefits without further remand.

Reeves v. Colvin, No. 24-1977, 2025 WL 87236 (8th Cir. Jan. 14, 2025): Jamila Reeves appealed the dismissal of her civil action for review of the denial of social security benefits as untimely. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Reeves failed to file within the 60-day deadline and was not entitled to equitable tolling.

Stambuk v. Colvin, No. 23-2561, 2025 WL 88845 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2025): Laurie A. Stambuk appealed the denial of her disability benefits, arguing that the ALJ improperly rejected medical opinions and her testimony. The court found that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and reversed the denial of benefits.

Nahhas v. Commissioner of Social Security, — F.Supp.3d — (D. Mass. 2024): Iman I. Nahhas challenged the denial of her disability benefits, seeking a rehearing on remand. The court exercised its discretion to allow a rehearing, finding that the claimant should have the opportunity to present additional evidence.

Kertz v. Colvin, — F.4th — (8th Cir. 2025): Jason Kertz appealed the district court’s decision on attorney’s fees following a favorable disability benefits decision. The court affirmed the district court’s reduction of the fee award, finding no abuse of discretion.

Bersie v. Colvin, No. 23-4377, 2025 WL 219116 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2025): Tammie Jo Bersie appealed the denial of her disability benefits, arguing errors in the ALJ’s determination of her past work and credibility assessment. The court affirmed the denial, finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision.

Fidel R.P. v. O’Malley, — F.Supp.3d — (N.D. Cal. 2024): Fidel R.P. sought review of the denial of his disability benefits, arguing errors in the ALJ’s evaluation of medical evidence and symptom testimony. The court found the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and remanded for further proceedings.

Nevin v. Colvin, — F.4th — (9th Cir. 2025): Beth Ann Nevin appealed the partial denial of her disability benefits, challenging the ALJ’s reopening of her second application. The court found the ALJ erred in reopening the application and remanded for the award of benefits.

Stephanie T. v. O’Malley, 738 F. Supp. 3d 156 (D.R.I. 2024): Stephanie T. challenged the denial of her SSI benefits, arguing that the ALJ erred in finding her fibromyalgia was not a medically determinable impairment. The court found the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and remanded for further proceedings.