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.

1. Alonzo S. v. O’Malley, — F.Supp.3d —, 2024 WL 4818732 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2024): The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois remanded the case to the Social Security Administration, holding that substantial evidence did not support the RFC determination or the evaluation of medical opinion evidence and that the ALJ violated agency policy. 

2. Daniela Cailean v. O’Malley, No. 24-596, 2024 WL 4824035 (9th Cir. Nov. 19, 2024): The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the ALJ improperly discounted Cailean’s symptom testimony and rejected medical opinions and third-party function reports. 

3. Gwendolyn Smith v. O’Malley, No. 23-3220, 2024 WL 4879472 (9th Cir. Nov. 25, 2024): The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the ALJ erred in rejecting Smith’s testimony about the extent of her pain. 

4. Lori S. v. O’Malley, 727 F.Supp.3d 78 (D. Conn. 2024): The District Court for the District of Connecticut remanded the case, holding that the ALJ improperly formulated his decision based on an incomplete record and insufficient evidence to support the RFC determination. 

5. Rony R. Romero v. O’Malley, No. 23-55292, 2024 WL 4919515 (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 2024): The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the ALJ failed to provide sufficient reasons for discounting Romero’s subjective symptom testimony, and that substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s determination regarding state agency consultants’ reports or Dr. Ingram’s medical opinion. 

6. Kimberly J. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 725 F.Supp.3d 305 (W.D.N.Y.2024): The District Court for the Western District of New York granted Kimberly J.’s motion in part, holding that the ALJ failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the RFC assessment’s limitations on Kimberly J.’s bilateral upper extremities. 

7. Hahn v. Kijakazi, 725 F.Supp.3d 994 (N.D. Cal. 2024): The District Court for the Northern District of California granted Hahn’s motion and remanded the case, holding that the ALJ erred in rejecting the examining psychologist’s opinion, discounting the claimant’s migraine testimony and rejecting third-party function reports. 

8. Charles E. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., — F.Supp.3d —, 2024 WL 4633422 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2024): The District Court for the Western District of New York granted Charles E.’s motion, holding that remand was warranted for further explanation of the RFC limitation about the claimant’s bathroom breaks. 

9. Karen O. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 731 F.Supp.3d 926 (S.D. Ohio 2024): The District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted counsel’s motion for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in part, holding that the two motions for fees should have been filed as a single motion. In addition, the claimant’s attorney did not file for EAJA fees on the second case; as a result the hypothetical EAJA award reduced the requested § 406(b) fee award. 

Download the full length summaries below.