Recent Cases of Interest
October 30, 2024
Tom Krause, NOSSCR 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.
- In Kenneth T. v. O’Malley, 2024 WL 4367248, No. 1:23-cv-437 (M.D. N.Car., Sept. 30, 2024), the District Court reversed and remanded the Commissioner’s denial of SSI benefits, finding the ALJ improperly discounted the claimant’s subjective complaints and “cherry-picked” evidence by relying on outdated opinions.
- In Yasmin V. v. O’Malley, — F.Supp. 3d — (D.R.I., May 24, 2024), due to unconscionable delays, the District Court remanded the case with an order to award DIB benefits from the alleged onset date.
- In Harriott v. Commissioner, 2024 WL 4448812 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 9, 2024), the District Court vacated the Appeals Council’s dismissal of a request for review and remanded for a determination of timeliness, finding the Council’s factual finding regarding the appeal submission date unsupported by substantial evidence.
- In Littrell v. O’Malley, No. 24-1923 (8th Cir. Oct. 4, 2024), the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the partial denial of SSI benefits, finding the ALJ insufficiently evaluated the claimant’s subjective pain complaints and, consequently, the RFC and hypothetical posed to the vocational expert were flawed.
- In Stephanie T. v. O’Malley, — F.Supp.3d —- , 2024 WL 3083460 (D.R.I. June 21, 2024), the District Court reversed and remanded the denial of SSI benefits, finding the ALJ’s determination regarding fibromyalgia as not a medically determinable impairment was not supported by substantial evidence and misapplied the law.
- In Manning v. O’Malley, 712 F.Supp.3d 894 (S.D. Tex. 2024), the District Court granted summary judgment, vacated the Commissioner’s denial of SSI, and remanded, finding the ALJ failed to comply with regulations requiring articulation of supportability and consistency when relying on medical opinions in determining the claimant’s RFC, particularly regarding the impact of her cystic fibrosis treatment regimen.
- In N.S. v. Commissioner of Social Security, — F.Supp.3d —- , 2024 WL 3548772 (M.D. Ga. July 23, 2024), the District Court granted the claimant’s motion for attorney fees under the EAJA after a successful appeal, finding the requested fees reasonable despite the Commissioner’s objections regarding excessive hours and vague billing entries.
- In Katrina M. v. O’Malley, — F.Supp.3d —- , 2024 WL 4298806 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2024), the District Court reversed and remanded the denial of SSI and DIB benefits, finding the ALJ erred by failing to assess the claimant’s non-severe mental impairments in formulating the RFC.
- In Rubin v. O’Malley, — F.4th —- (2d Cir. 2024), the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the denial of DIB benefits, finding the ALJ misinterpreted medical and lay evidence, failing to appreciate the support for the treating psychiatrist’s opinion and requiring further consideration of existing evidence and a consultative examination.
- In Ebony B. v. O’Malley, — F.Supp.3d —- (D.D.C. 2024), the District Court reversed and remanded the denial of SSI benefits, finding several errors in the ALJ’s RFC formulation and drug abuse or alcoholism analysis, including a lack of explanation for omitting the off-task limitation in the final RFC and mischaracterization of the claimant’s substance use.
- In Rodney Edward G. v. O’Malley, — F.Supp.3d —- (2024), 2024 WL 3654017 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 5, 2024), the District Court reversed and remanded the denial of SSDI and SSI benefits, finding the ALJ erred in evaluating the opinion of the claimant’s treating psychiatrist and therapist, failing to consider its consistency and supportability.
- In Shirley H. v. Kijakazi, 710 F.Supp.3d 458 (D.S.C. Jan. 3, 2024), the District Court reversed and remanded the denial of disability insurance benefits, finding the ALJ erred by failing to explain the omission of mental limitations from the RFC, despite identifying mild limitations due to depression.
- In Fink v. Kijakazi, 710 F.Supp.3d 641 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 8, 2024), the District Court affirmed the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income in part, finding the claimant forfeited her challenge to the vocational expert’s job number estimates but also finding the VE’s testimony, combined with her explanation, provided sufficient evidence.
- In Prosa v. Commissioner of Social Security, — F.Supp.3d —- (2024), 2024 WL 4205285 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2024), the District Court granted judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings, finding the ALJ’s RFC determination unsupported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the restriction on kneeling, as the ALJ failed to explain the departure from persuasive medical opinions recommending no kneeling.
- In Phillips v. O’Malley, 2024 WL 4274859 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 24, 2024), the District Court reversed and remanded the denial of disability insurance benefits, finding the ALJ’s decision that substance abuse was a contributing factor material to the claimant’s disability was not supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ inconsistently evaluated medical opinion evidence.