Representative Cases
A record built one brief at a time.
Selected federal court matters illustrating the questions we litigate and the standards we hold decisions to.
Agreed Sentence Four reversal and remand for further administrative proceedings
Gick v. Commissioner of Social Security — U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division (No. 2:26-cv-00029-JEM)
The Commissioner moved unopposed to reverse the denial and remand the matter under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court granted the agreed motion, reversed the Commissioner's decision, and directed that the decision be vacated and the case assigned to an administrative law judge to evaluate the medical opinions, complete the administrative record, offer the claimant an opportunity for a hearing, and obtain additional vocational evidence as warranted.
Reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings (June 25, 2026)
Residual functional capacity — selective reliance on 'generally unremarkable' examination findings
Crenshaw v. Commissioner of Social Security — U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (No. 1:25-cv-02138-PAG)
The ALJ discounted the claimant's reported positional intolerance and multiple sclerosis symptoms by characterizing her physical examination findings as generally unremarkable, while the same decision catalogued lower-extremity weakness, decreased sensation, antalgic and abnormal gait, and reduced strength and flexibility. The magistrate judge found the ALJ failed to build an accurate and logical bridge from that mixed evidence to a limited sedentary residual functional capacity, noting the 'normal' findings largely predated the records supporting disability. The district court accepted the report and recommendation and vacated the denial.
Vacated and remanded for further consideration (September 17, 2026)
Evaluation of subjective symptom testimony under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529
Raynor v. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security — U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina (No. 2:24-cv-53-D-BM)
The ALJ found a medium-work residual functional capacity after concluding that the claimant's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her knee pain were not entirely consistent with the record. The magistrate judge recommended that the claimant's request for relief be allowed, and the district court adopted the recommendation, granting the claimant's requested relief, denying the Commissioner's, and returning the case to the agency for further consideration.
Remanded for further consideration (March 5, 2026)
Medical-opinion evidence — supportability and consistency under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c
Nisbet v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration — U.S. District Court, District of Arizona (No. CV-25-01867-PHX-DJH)
The ALJ discounted opinions from a reviewing physician and a physical therapist without separately evaluating the supportability of either opinion. The court held that discussing consistency with the broader medical record did not satisfy the requirement to explain how each source supported the opinion with objective medical evidence. Because the errors affected the residual functional capacity assessment and were not harmless, the court reversed the denial and remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings (September 16, 2026)
Remand for further administrative proceedings
Rienstra v. Commissioner of Social Security — U.S. District Court, District of Idaho (No. 1:25-cv-00530-REP)
After federal court litigation, the court entered judgment remanding the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.
Remanded for further administrative proceedings (June 17, 2026)
Sentence Four reversal with a new hearing and decision on remand
Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security — U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (No. 2:26-cv-02151-NCM)
After federal court litigation, the court reversed and remanded the Commissioner's final decision under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Judgment directed the Commissioner on remand to take any further action needed to complete the administrative record, offer the opportunity for a new hearing, and issue a new decision.
Reversed and remanded under Sentence Four (September 8, 2026)
Agreed reversal and Sentence Four remand for further administrative proceedings
Ybanez v. Commissioner of Social Security — U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (No. 1:25-cv-11337)
After federal court litigation, the Commissioner filed an agreed motion for reversal with remand for further administrative proceedings. The court granted the motion and ordered judgment entered reversing the Commissioner's decision, with remand to the agency for further proceedings under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Reversed and remanded under Sentence Four (August 20, 2026)
Stipulated Sentence Four remand with a new hearing and decision
Krikorian v. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security — U.S. District Court, Central District of California (No. 2:26-cv-03572-CV-SSC)
After federal court litigation, the parties stipulated to voluntary remand under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court granted the stipulation, ordered the Appeals Council to direct the administrative law judge to offer the claimant a new hearing, take further action to complete the administrative record, and issue a new decision, and directed entry of judgment in the claimant's favor reversing the Commissioner's final decision.
Reversed and remanded under Sentence Four (August 19, 2026)
Sentence Four reversal and remand for further administrative proceedings
Littlepage v. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security — U.S. District Court, District of Kansas (No. 2:25-cv-02656-JWB)
After federal court litigation, the Commissioner moved unopposed under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for entry of judgment reversing and remanding the denial. The court granted the motion, reversed the Commissioner's decision under Sentence Four, and remanded the matter to the agency for further administrative proceedings, citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).
Reversed and remanded under Sentence Four (June 22, 2026)
Sentence Four remand for further consideration of the disability claim
A.R.M. (Maupin) v. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security — U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Western Division (No. 4:26-00189-CV-LMC)
Following federal court litigation, the Commissioner moved to reverse and remand the denial for further consideration of the claim. The court granted the motion, reversed the Commissioner's decision, and remanded under Sentence Four of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), directing the agency to use its best efforts to complete review within 180 days.
Reversed and remanded under Sentence Four (August 19, 2026)
Sentence Four remand — income source after onset and omitted medical limitations
Earel v. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security — U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division (No. 3:25-cv-3313-DJQ)
The ALJ denied disability benefits without considering the source of Ms. Earel's income after her alleged onset date and without building an accurate and logical bridge between the record evidence of her diabetes insipidus and chronic acute pancreatitis and the residual functional capacity. The court held both errors required reversal and remanded under Sentence Four of Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act.
Reversed and remanded under Sentence Four (August 12, 2026)
Significantly probative evidence the ALJ failed to discuss
Galloway v. Commissioner, SSA — U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (No. 23-4054)
The administrative law judge assessed a light-work residual functional capacity without ever addressing a functional capacity evaluation documenting objective lifting, carrying, upper-extremity, and ambulation deficits — including a six-minute walk test result well below the norm for a man decades older. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held the evaluation was significantly probative evidence the ALJ was required to discuss, and that a general statement of having considered the whole record did not excuse the omission.
Reversed and remanded to the agency for further proceedings (April 9, 2024)
Sentence Four reversal and remand of the Commissioner's final decision
Tavarez L. v. Commissioner, SSA — U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (No. 3:25-cv-2942-BK)
After federal court briefing, the Commissioner moved unopposed to return the case to the agency. The court granted the motion, reversed the Commissioner's final decision, and remanded under Sentence Four of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), directing the Appeals Council to order a new hearing, complete the administrative record, and issue a new decision.
Reversed and remanded under Sentence Four (April 23, 2026)
Residual functional capacity and defective vocational hypothetical — visual limitations
Sandra J. v. Commissioner, SSA — U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division (No. 4:24-cv-1043-BK)
The ALJ found thyroid eye disease with double vision to be a severe impairment yet accounted for it only by precluding driving and climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolds. The record showed the claimant managed diplopia by closing one eye, a limitation never presented to the vocational expert. The court held the residual functional capacity failed to incorporate a recognized, record-supported limitation and that reliance on the resulting hypothetical was not substantially justified.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings (March 30, 2026)
SSR 96-8p — unexplained conflict between the RFC and a relied-upon medical opinion
Sharp v. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security — U.S. District Court, District of Kansas (No. 25-4014-EFM)
The ALJ credited a consultative examiner's opinion as supported and consistent, yet omitted from the residual functional capacity her finding that the claimant may have difficulty maintaining a regular work schedule — without any narrative explanation. The court rejected the Commissioner's post-hoc rationalizations, held that SSR 96-8p required the ALJ to explain the omission, and found the error harmful because the vocational expert testified that the omitted limitation would preclude all work.
Reversed and remanded under Sentence Four (October 27, 2025)
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any future matter, and nothing here constitutes legal advice or creates an attorney-client relationship.