At the Law Office of Erik W. Berger, we do not believe that an ALJ unfavorable decision should be the end of your claim for benefits. Erik has appealed legally deficient unfavorable decisions both for his own clients and for clients referred to him by other attorneys. Below is a list of just a few of the cases where the Federal Court has deetermined that the Social Security Administration wrongly decided an individual's claim for disability benefits.
Coker v. Barnhart, Case No. 3:06-cv-135-J-MCR, Richardson, J., decided November 22, 2006
The plaintiff argued that the ALJ erred by failing to properly develop the medical evidence when he did not order an updated consultative examination to further evaluate the plaintiff's mental impairments. The court agreed with the plaintiff, noting that the ALJ has a duty to investigate the facts and fully and fairly develop the record. The court thus proceeded to remand the claim with instructions to the ALJ to order an updated consultative psychological examination. Referred by Lori Gaglione, Esquire. --------------------
Sandiford v. Barnhart, Case No.: 3:05-cv-1174-J-HTS, Snyder, J., decided September 15, 2006 The plaintiff argued that the ALJ’s credibility determination was flawed and failed to follow the Commissioner’s applicable rulings and regulations.
The Court agreed, finding that the ALJ erred by offering a “generalized” or “boilerplate” discussion of the plaintiff’s testimony and that the ALJ improperly employed “sit and squirm jurisprudence”. The Court also found that the ALJ should have provided a “more detailed discussion of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity” in light of the severe impairments he found. Referred by A. Sam Jubran, Esquire. CASE PENDING AT REMAND
--------------------
McGaughy v. Commissioner, Case No. 3:05-cv-551-J-MMH, Morales Howard, J., decided September 13, 2006
In this case the district court remanded the claim for a new hearing, agreeing with the plaintiff that the ALJ failed to provide the requisite good cause when he rejected the opinion of the plaintiff’s treating physician. The court determined that the ALJ failed to properly follow the applicable Rulings, regulations and case law regarding the opinion of a treating physician and remanded the case for a new hearing. BENEFITS AWARDED ON REMAND --------------------
Doyle v. Barnhart, 361 F. Supp.2d 1357 (M.D. Fla.2005) In an SSI overpayment case the plaintiff argued that the ALJ erred in determining that he was “at fault” in causing an overpayment resulting from his return to work. The court agreed with the plaintiff that his simply reporting his work to the Social Security Administration “does not establish automatically that he should know his benefits eligibility would be affected.” The court also found that there was no evidence that the claimant was notified by the Administration as to how much money he could earn without his benefits being affected and that the ALJ failed to properly inquire as to the plaintiff’s understanding of the SSI system. OVERPAYMENT WAIVED ON REMAND --------------------
Russ v. Barnhart, 363 F. Supp.2d 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2005) The plaintiff appealed a decision by ALJ Meisburg that determined that she was “disabled” but had failed to follow prescribed treatment, namely weight loss. She argued to the Federal Court that the ALJ incorrectly determined that the plaintiff failed to follow prescribed treatment and that even if she had followed such treatment her ability to work would have been restored. The Federal Court reversed the decision of the ALJ and remanded the case for a new hearing, ruling that failing in losing weight through the use of a diet does not equate to a failure to follow prescribed treatment. The Court also found that the ALJ’s decision lacked a sufficient basis to support his determination that treatment compliance would have restored the plaintiff’s ability to work. Upon remand the ALJ issued a second unfavorable decision, this time finding that the plaintiff could perform sedentary work, notably not addressing whether the claimant failed to follow prescribed treatment. Plaintiff has appealed this decision again to the Federal Court. CASE PENDING FOR A NEW HEARING --------------------
Brown v. Barnhart, Case No.: 3:05-cv-613-MMH, Morales Howard, J., decided September 14, 2006 The Court agreed with the plaintiff that the ALJ had failed to properly address the opinion of her mental health treating physician. Specifically, the Court determined that the ALJ failed to properly set forth the weight she provided to the opinion of the treating physician. CLIENT ULTIMATELY AWARDED BENEFITS AT NEW HEARING |
