Tom Krause, NOSSCR Litigation Director

Below are short summaries of several recent cases. More detailed explanations are available in the downloadable document at the bottom of the list.

1. Da Costa v. O’Malley, 740 F. Supp.3d 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2024): The court upheld an ALJ’s determination that a claimant failed to establish a valid common law marriage under Pennsylvania law necessary for widow’s benefits, finding no express agreement made in a state recognizing common law marriage and insufficient evidence of a broad reputation of marriage despite continuous cohabitation.

2. Ginder v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 24-2098, 2025 WL 323095 (3d Cir. Jan. 29, 2025): The Third Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s order, finding that the ALJ failed to adequately explain the basis for determining the claimant could perform light work, particularly regarding her ability to stand or walk for the majority of an eight-hour workday.

3. Mojica v. King, No. SA-24-CV-00143-ESC, 2025 WL 271573 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2025): The district court vacated and remanded the Commissioner’s decision, holding that the ALJ committed prejudicial error by failing to conduct proper supportability and consistency analyses of the examining physician’s mental RFC opinion and failing to properly evaluate the consistency of the state agency medical consultants’ opinions.

4. Lopez v. O’Malley, No. 23-60844-CIV, 2024 WL 4881025 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024): The court granted partial summary judgment to the claimant and remanded the case after finding the ALJ erred by refusing to consider the claimant’s objections and rebuttal evidence to vocational expert testimony, constituting non-harmless error.

5. N.S. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 742 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (M.D. Ga. 2024): Following remand, the court granted the claimant’s motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, finding the time spent reviewing the transcript (13 hours) and drafting the brief (33.8 hours) reasonable and awarding $17,105.19 to be paid directly to the plaintiff under the Anti-Assignment Act.

6. Marian H. v. Dudek, No. 24-CV-28-KSC, 2025 WL 546368 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2025): The court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, holding that the ALJ correctly applied the revised Listing 1.15 rather than superseded Listing 1.04 to the claimant’s pending case, concluding that applying new regulatory listings to pending claims does not constitute impermissible retroactivity under Supreme Court precedent.

7. Rodney Edward G. v. O’Malley, 743 F. Supp. 3d 653 (E.D. Pa. 2024): The district court remanded the Commissioner’s denial of benefits upon finding that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the treating psychiatrist’s and therapist’s opinion under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(b)(2) and 416.920c(b)(2) by neglecting to analyze consistency with other evidence and by incorrectly characterizing severe mental health symptoms as “generally mild to moderate.”