Tom Krause, Litigation Director

This month 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 in the downloadable document at the bottom of the list, you’ll find more detailed explanations.

1. De Camacho v. O’Malley, 717 F.Supp.3d 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2024): The district court remanded the denial of disability benefits, finding the ALJ erred in failing to develop the record regarding the claimant’s use of a cane, but that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that the claimant’s depression was non-severe.

2. Sharon J. v. Commissioner of Social Security, 716 F.Supp.3d 59 (W.D.N.Y. 2024): The district court remanded the denial of disability benefits because the ALJ failed to include the claimant’s non-severe mental limitations in the RFC assessment.

3. Duran v. O’Malley, — F.Supp.3d — (D. Mass. 2024): The district court reversed and remanded the denial of disability benefits because the Appeals Council failed to consider new and material evidence in the form of a vocational report.

4. Harriott v. Commissioner of Social Security, — F.Supp.3d — (S.D.N.Y. 2024): The district court vacated the Appeals Council’s dismissal of the claimant’s appeal and remanded for a determination of timeliness based on an expanded record, finding substantial evidence did not support the Appeals Council’s finding that the claimant did not timely appeal.

5. Minarsky v. Kijakazi, — F.Supp.3d — (M.D. Pa. 2024): The district court reversed and remanded the denial of disability benefits, finding the ALJ erred in failing to properly consider the supportability and consistency of multiple medical opinions.

6. Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Security, — Fed.Appx. — 2024 WL 4603298 (11th Cir. Oct. 29, 2024): The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the denial of supplemental security income benefits because the ALJ adopted an RFC assessment that conflicted with a consulting psychologist’s opinions without explanation.

7. Jackson v. O’Malley, — F.Supp.3d — (D.S.C. 2024): The district court reversed and remanded the denial of continuing supplemental security income because the ALJ evaluated the claimant’s mental impairments under the current listing criteria rather than the criteria in effect when she was initially found disabled.

8. Wilt v. O’Malley, 720 F.Supp.3d 94 (D.N.H. 2024): The district court awarded attorney’s fees following a successful appeal of a denial of disability benefits.

9. Charles E. v. Commissioner of Social Security, — F.Supp.3d — (W.D.N.Y. 2024): The district court remanded the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income for further explanation of bathroom break limitations in the RFC.

10. Nerio Mejia v. O’Malley, — F.4th — (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2024): The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s order reducing an EAJA fee award, holding that fees for work on alternative arguments are compensable even if the court did not address them.

11. Jeremy H. v. O’Malley, 722 F.Supp.3d 1161 (E.D. Wash. 2024): The district court denied the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss for untimely filing, finding the claimant exhausted administrative remedies and established grounds for equitable tolling.

12. Comack v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, — Fed.Appx. — 2024 WL 4719238 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2024): The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a complaint related to pending social security proceedings for failure to serve the Commissioner and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Download the full length summaries below.