Category: Social Security Federal Appeals
-
Rayner: When “Simple Work” Leaves a Task Limit Unexplained
A Pennsylvania federal court ordered a new hearing after an ALJ credited medical evidence about one- and two-step tasks but omitted that limit without explanation. Rayner shows why the fit between the RFC and the jobs cited to deny SSDI and SSI benefits deserves close attention.
-
SSI Appeals: Connecting Stable Mental Health Findings to Workplace Ability
In Charles K. v. Bisignano, a New Jersey court required a clearer explanation of how stable examinations and questionnaire ratings supported an SSI denial.
-
When Medical Findings Don’t Explain an Ability to Work
A Pennsylvania court sent an SSDI denial back for further proceedings because the record did not adequately support the ALJ’s assessment of the claimant’s work capacity.
-
Missing Hearing Testimony Can Undermine an SSDI Denial
An incomplete hearing record mattered when an ALJ relied on missing testimony to assess a claimant’s ability to interact at work. A Wisconsin federal court ordered a complete transcript or a new hearing, followed by a new decision.
-
When a Partner’s Statement Matters in an SSDI Appeal
In Fain v. Bisignano, the Ninth Circuit explained why an ALJ must give reasons for rejecting competent lay testimony—and why a partner’s specific observations mattered.
-
SSDI Appeals: Limited Daily Activities Do Not Tell the Whole Story
A California federal court ordered another review of an SSDI denial after finding gaps in how the ALJ evaluated daily activities, normal findings, and brief hearing observations.
-
When Social Security Ends Benefits, What Has Actually Changed?
A federal court remanded a benefits cessation decision because the ALJ did not meaningfully compare the medical evidence before and after the disability finding.
-
SSI Remand: The ALJ Must Connect Medical Evidence to the Conclusion
A federal court vacated an SSI denial because the ALJ did not explain how the objective medical evidence supported two agency doctors’ opinions. The claimant won a remand, but several other challenges were rejected.
-
Why Limited Mental Health Treatment Required a Closer Look
A federal court remanded an SSDI claim after the ALJ relied on limited ongoing mental health treatment without examining whether the claimant’s impairments affected his pursuit of care. The decision illustrates why treatment history must be evaluated in context.
-
Why “Occasional” Contact Did Not Resolve a “Superficial” Interaction Limit
An Ohio federal court held that limiting how often a claimant interacts with others does not necessarily address how demanding those interactions may be. Because the ALJ did not explain the omitted restriction or test it with the vocational expert, the case returned for further proceedings.
Feden Law Group
For the sick, injured, and disabled.
And guidance for everyone else.
(267) 234-7465
Fax: (215) 258-9861
nfeden@fedenlawgroup.com
711 West Ave., Jenkintown, PA 19046
This website provides general information, not legal advice. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Representation begins only after a written agreement. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.